Obama at West Point: Shhh, we can’t say ‘Victory’
"In war there is no substitute for victory" - General Douglas MacArthur
First, the executive summary: President Obama announced to our enemy the date we will walk away from the fight. Win, lose, or draw, we are gone in July 2011. Now I am no general, but it seems that telling your enemy that, after fighting us for 8 years, he only needs to wait another year and a half and we will be out of his hair, is frankly idiotic. Oh, and just for good measure, he threw in that we would be cleared out of Iraq by, you guessed it, 2011. Good plan for the ol’ reelection bid there Mr. President, not that Obama would even consider such a craven political angle in drafting a military plan.
The rest of the speech (full text here) was right out of the Bush play book. The reasons for the fight are just, the enemy is evil, and we will pursue them there so they don’t come here and start blowing themselves up in shopping malls (although, they did seem to have figured out this year how to kill us on military bases in Texas . . .).
The other departure from the Bush book, aside from telling the enemy to just hang out for another 18 months, was that Obama simply could not bring himself to use the word “Victory.” I slogged through the entire prepared remarks, and, unless I missed something, it ain’t there. And it matters. Americans, and especially members of our military, are only interested in one thing: Victory. They want to know that the while the Commander-in-Chief says he feels the pressure and pain of ordering our brave patriots into harm’s way, that he really, truly has his heart in the fight; that he wants to lead them to Victory over the enemy, and he wants them to return home triumphant, in the finest tradition of generations of American warriors before them.
But they didn’t get that from Obama tonight. Nope. What they got was the cold gruel of a Harvard politician.
[T]he strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.
A successful conclusion? Teenagers hope to bring a driving test at the DMV to a successful conclusion. In war, you vanquish your enemy and declare victory. Oh, and for all you Iraq War vets out there, you didn’t get a proclamation of victory out of Obama either. You are getting a responsible end to your war.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
How very responsible of you guys to fight over there to restore responsibility to the irresponsible people you were fighting. The closest he came to “victory” in Iraq was this.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq . . ..”
That’s “hard-earned,” as in hard-earned victory, Mr. President. Our guys don’t fight for frickin’ milestones, those are rocks on the side of the road. They fight for Victory, and that is exactly what our troops achieved in that hell-hole. Would it have killed Obama to say it? It’s not like he would have pissed off any of the cadets in the audience; this wasn’t a Code Pink rally.
So Obama, like Bush before him, begins a troop surge (noting for a moment that Obama opposed Bush’s Iraq surge every step of the way, and denied it was working while the evidence of the smashing success of the strategy swirled all around him). True, his lefty base will lose it’s mind, but the president reassured them tonight, along with our enemies, that we only have 18 months to go, and we can bring everybody home.
How very responsible.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bill_Dupray and Bill_Dupray, Bill Dupray. Bill Dupray said: #tcot Obama at West Point: Shhh, we can’t say ‘Victory’: First, the executive summary: President Obama announced to our http://url4.eu/rpTy [...]
I agree that this whole thing was nothing more than a cynical political calculation. Still, at least he didn’t use the words ‘Mission Accomplished.’
We won the war in Iraq. Lots of people died for it. The least he could have done is acknowledged victory for the veterans and their families. After all, he is the C-in-C.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
Of course we “won” the war in Iraq because all of the MWDs that we went there to eliminate are gone. That is why Mr. Bush set a pull out date for July 2011.
In response to another comment. See in context »I know I’ve asked you essentially this question before, and you didn’t answer, but one more time: what do you mean we “won” in Iraq? You’re very concerned with what words are or aren’t used, but you seem to have no regard for those words’ real-world meaning. Is that too much trouble to think about? Isn’t that your job?
In response to another comment. See in context »Our goal was to remove a murderous tyrant to stop his pursuit of WMD’s and, in the process, liberate the Iraqi people so they could live under a Democratically elected government.
Didn’t we do exactly that?
In response to another comment. See in context »I guess now I have to ask you to define “democracy.”
As anyone paying attention readily attests, the government of Iraq is now made up of corrupt Shia power brokers who won control in part because we backed them in an undeclared civil war. So we replaced a murderous tyrant with a bunch of murderous tyrants, except these tyrants have the added advantage of sharing religion and political views with the leadership of Iran. Is this “democracy” and/or “victory” in your view?
And further, wasn’t the goal to create western-style democracy throughout the region, by Iraq’s example? Obviously, this was utopian fantasy (set up by ideologues who either didn’t know or didn’t care about the realities on the ground), but wasn’t the WMD scare put out there to placate the public, while the fulfillment of this grander ambition was what really constituted “victory”? Didn’t the planners say as much?
In response to another comment. See in context »I guess you are right Kramer, the Iraqis would have better off with Saddam, Uday, Qusay running the show. My bad. You see, when I hear about free elections, I start to think about the Democratic process. When I think about gassing Kurds, I think about the guy you’d prefer to be in charge.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
You wrote: “President X announced to our enemy the date we will walk away from the fight. Win, lose, or draw, we are gone in July 2011.”
Were you talking about President Obama and Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html
or President Bush and Iraq?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/middleeast/22baghdad.html
I was just wondering is all…
If you are going to give me a clever side-by side set of links, at least be sure you have either read them or that they are in fact clever.
These are the first two paragraphs of the Bush link.
Pulling out “if circumstances warrant” and pulling out are not different in degree, they are different in kind.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
What are these “aspirational goals”, how many of them are there, and which of them have been achieved?
In response to another comment. See in context »So what are the other options? We all want victory, but what yardstick are we using to define it? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or claim I know what you are thinking which is why I’m asking.
If we are talking victory in the conventional sense (take WWII as an example) I would have to say that the history of the region means that we would be doomed from the start. I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments, but I’m positive the American people on both sides of the fence have neither the will nor the desire to be in the country indefinitely. And that is what would have to happen.
I agree victory is important, but not when the terms are so imprecise. For my part, I think we would be better of shedding this idea of the US as the world’s policeman/spreader of democracy. In places like Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully wipe out a movement like the Taliban. They melt into the country side and reform at a moment’s notice. Plus, the longer we stay, the more chances we have to make mistakes. Those mistakes just create new terrorists. Instead, I would think we would be better served by making any such occupations as short as possible. Stay long enough to swat down the leadership, then leave. If we do it correctly and hard enough, we may not need to return.
This is obviously a highly divisive and political issue. You have obviously picked your side. To be fair, I know I have mine, but I wish that the regular people would take the politics out of the debate. God knows the politicians never will. I believe you’ve picked your side because you think it is what’s best for this country. It’s just a shame that voicing an opinion now means alienating half the population.
You and I may not disagree. Unlike most of the left today, I agree with Obama’s starting a surge to finish the job. The more troops the better. When you overwhelm the enemy, then you can win.
My beef is only with telling the enemy when we are leaving. That plan encourages them to wait us out. If you were a member of the Taliban or al Qaeda, wouldn’t you be laughing at the folly of the enemy telegraphing when he will leave the battlefield? It borders on the ludicrous. So all our soldiers will have a harder time trying to find the enemy, who will simply fall on the ball and run out the clock.
In response to another comment. See in context »We’re probably just disagreeing about terminology now, but you’re right, I think we probably do see more eye to eye on this. I just think at this point, saying when we’ll start to withdraw doesn’t make much of a difference. We’re there to basically nation build, not defeat a tangible enemy force. The quicker we’re out of there the better as far as I’m concerned, and while letting the Taliban know when we’re gone may give them hope, it also puts Afghanistan on notice that we won’t hold their hand anymore. Which is good, because as much as I understand the humanitarian arguments, we have no business nor can we afford to nation build.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bill, interesting observation. But the notion of victory in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, is delusional. Success is a much more realistic term.
In Iraq, we dug a lot of holes in the sand and we have sort of filled them back in. I don’t consider that a victory. In fact, official Washington is the only place in the world that has convinvced themselves that they won a big victory in Iraq. Almost everybody else in the world–and this includes most Iraqis I’ve talked to–recognize the war for what it is/was–a catastrophic failure that did little to advance American interests. We’re making it out by the skin of our teeth, pretending that our credibility is intact. What exactly did we win again?
In Afghanistan, our time to declare victory was many years ago–and we did, in 2002, when then VP Cheney remarked that the Taliban was “permanently” out of business. We could have had another real victory if we killed OBL, but that didn’t happen. In this war, victory is a pretty empty term–victory means fighting the Taliban for 18 months so Hamid Karzai is in a stronger negotiating position to work out a deal with Taliban. Hoohah.
But maybe Obama should have used the word victory. If he’s going to choose West Point as his backdrop, he might as well have embraced his role as chief propagandist and served up some victory one liners for the cadets.
This is a curious statement.
Our goal was to remove a murderous tyrant to stop his pursuit of WMD’s and, in the process, liberate the Iraqi people so they could live under a Democratically elected government.
Didn’t we do exactly that?
Not sure what the sand/holes thing means.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
The United States invaded Iraq to eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that Mr. Hussein was supposedly manufacturing. I guess since there are no MWDs in now I guess it was a success. However since there were no MWDs before the invasion, it would have just as successful if there were no war at all.
In response to another comment. See in context »That talking point is exhausting every time I hear it. All global intelligence agencies, said Saddam had WMD’s. Period.
Aside from that, there was that little matter of 500 tons of yellowcake we removed from Iraq in 2008. Just as a reminder, yellowcake is used to make nuclear weapons.
From MSNBC.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
“Yellow Cake”? That was a fraud, there was no yellow cake. The “intelligence” indicating the that was a forgery on a stolen letterhead. Did you not read the Bush Administrations report on MWDs? Not only were there not any MWDs, there was no program to develop them.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmd/index.html
In response to another comment. See in context »No, we didn’t. We got rid of bad regime and have replaced it with sketchy government that is democratic in name only, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of American lives. We didn’t find WMDs, of course, there was no AQ link etc…We unleashed a horrible sectarian conflict, and strengthened Iran…And I suggest talking to the folks you claim we “liberated”–shouldn’t be too hard, there’s over 20,000 here in the U.S., as they had to flee for their lives–and you’ll get a much more nuanced perspective.
I’ll simplify the imagery. We spent four years digging a very deep hole in the desert. The surge helped us fill the hole back in. That’s more like an unsatisfying tie. Maybe success, but calling it a victory is a stretch.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Hastings (& Mr. Dupray),
The real objective of the Iraq war was to turn Iraq into a stable pro-US client state, if it were also democratic and secular, well that would be nice too. Instead it is a Shia dominated, sectarian, unstable client state of Iran. Iran won without firing a shot.
In response to another comment. See in context »Do the West Pointers get to hide their grades and records as Obama has hidden his grades and records at Harvard law School?
Well, anyway, Obama should do well in Afghanistan….as long as his tanks don’t roll over the afghan farmers’ opium fields and destroy their opium crops….
“Our goal was to remove a murderous tyrant to stop his pursuit of WMD’s and, in the process, liberate the Iraqi people so they could live under a Democratically elected government.”
Didn’t we do exactly that?
Well since there are no WMDs in Afghanistan and they have a democracy now and Al Quida is down to a hundred according to the same sources that assured us that Hussein had a weapons program haven’t we achieved victory there? The only thing missing was getting Osama at Tora Bora but now he is in Pakistan so maybe we need to send our soldiers there but in Afghanistan according to your standards its mission accomplished.
Also the yellow cake that you refer to was under guard by the UN before the war, we were well aware of it and when we took the country it was sitting under seal untouched where it should have been. It was largely useless because the Israelis bombed the crap out of their nuclear facilities and I think Hussein got the message. Also why would Hussein seek yellow cake in Africa if he had a hoard of the stuff?
This yellow cake was not weapons grade uranium and we finally sold the stuff to Canada but that in no way proves your point about WMDs.
Maybe Obama’s refusal to use the word “victory” was a half-hearted attempt to inject a little bit of truth into a speech that otherwise, as you note, could have delivered by Bush. “Victory” is almost laughably meaningless in the context of whatever it is we’re doing in Afghanistan. Its only possible purpose could be as a sop to the jingoists and warmongers who prefer to view America’s flailing around in the middle east and central Asia as a sporting event. I guess that’s easier than seeing it for what it is—lots of death and destruction, for no good reason.
And while we’re on the topic of words Obama failed to use, I notice he didn’t use the word “occupation” either—at least not to describe our occupation of Afghanistan. He used it a few times to describe the Soviet occupation, and the “occupation” by Al Qaeda. But how was the Soviet occupation any different from our own? Could it be that the “enemy” you keep referring to is just a bunch of regular Afghans who are opposed to a foreign army occupying their home in a pointless attempt to defend a puppet government in Kabul?
Umm, the Soviets didn’t just occupy countries, they conquered them. They took over the countries in Eastern Europe and formed an Iron Curtain. I don’t know if you saw the president’s speech, but America does not conquer or occupy countries. Communists do. I can’t believe I really have to distinguish these things for an American (I assume) citizen.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am an American citizen, so yes, I’m familiar with all of the official propaganda that spews out of Washington. I just don’t buy much of it, especially when it so obviously contradicts reality.
We invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban, and for the past eight years we’ve been hanging around the country in a vain attempt to prop up a government that we installed. How does this not constitute ‘conquering’ and ‘occupying’? I seriously doubt the average Afghani sees much difference between our occupation (sorry, not sure what other word to use here) and the Soviet one.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bill, you remind me of the famous quote from the American colonel in Vietnam: “We had to destroy the town in order to save it.”
If George Bush had deposed Saddam, installed a stable, functioning Iraqi government and brought most of the troops home in six months, the Iraq war would have gone down as a victory regardless of the trumped-up WMD excuse. We had a chance to do that and we blew it. If we don’t admit those mistakes, we’re going to repeat them.
I know the Iraq War apologists will rewrite the narrative to show that we really won in Iraq, just like they tried to show that we didn’t lose in Vietnam (and if we did, it was someone else’s fault). Good luck with the whitewash.
I notice that lots of the lefties came over for a chat on this and started reliving the salad days of Bush-bashing. I would be curious to hear what you all think of our current president’s major war plan announced last night. I suspect there is a quandary over supporting the troops and the Democrat president’s opinion that national security depends on this plan versus knee-jerk pacifism and feelings of betrayal that Obama is now a war president. The dilemma seems to be on the left, not the right.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bill, I think what some of us are trying to tell you is that given the situation created by the ineptitude of Bush, Cheney and the Pentagon, there is no real chance of victory. If victory is defined as turning Iraq and Afghanistan into stable, democratic U.S. allies, it should been done by 2004. The only victories you win from long wars are Pyrrhic ones.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Revolutionary War was 8 years long and that one seemed to have worked out okay.
In response to another comment. See in context »Uh, Bill, the insurgents won the American Revolutionary War.
In response to another comment. See in context »Victory? Oh, Bill, that’s so adorably quaint. Next you’ll be wanting to hear about glory, triumph and heroes. Wars–that is, counterinsurgency operations during occupations of 3rd-world hellholes–don’t end in victory anymore. They end either in utter debacle or at best they just peter out–except when they don’t end at all, such as the current two. Also, I almost forgot to mention, they’re ruinously expensive.
If this were Slashdot, I’d say “mod parent up”
In response to another comment. See in context »Dupray, this post is laughably out of touch with reality. At least Mr. Obama was being realistic by avoiding the “v” word.
“Americans … are only interested in one thing: Victory.” Why don’t you ask one of the 50 million Americans without health insurance if they give a shit about “victory”? Why don’t you ask someone from Detroit or Buffalo or Pittsburgh or Shelby, NC, about “victory”? Why don’t you ask a former home-owner, or one of the 25% of homeowners who are currently underwater, if they care? What about the reservists I went to college with who had no intentions of ever fighting in a stupid “war” and now put their asses on the line daily? Hey, maybe they’ll finish their degrees someday!
I have been a broke-ass student for the last 6 years, awaiting the day when I could show off a piece of paper with the word “Master” on it and land a decent job. I got it, but it’s as valuable as toilet paper. I’d kill for even a shitty job right now. Many of my friends are in similar situations and none of us give a damn about “victory.” We want what Europeans have: health care, jobs, cheap education, and a country where we can raise children.
Meanwhile, schmucks like you are writing from fantasy-land about the importance (or is it impotence?) of “victory.”
That Hopeandchange thing isn’t all it was cracked up to be is it? Maybe if Obama stopped busting the budget and cut taxes maybe businesses would start hiring again and people could pay their bills rather than throwing their hard earned money down the rathole call the federal government.
Wasn’t Obama the one who said if we passed the stimulus, unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%? We are now at 10.2%. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he’s made things worse, not better?
In response to another comment. See in context »Dupray, please don’t attempt to tar my reputation here. I don’t vote for corporate-owned politicians and sure don’t believe good advertising.
I like how you have no reply to anything I said so you just try to paint me as some libtard Obamabot and throw “stimulus fail” and “bailout fail” arguments at me. This is why your form of “conservatism” is intellectually bankrupt — I’ve read your anti-environmental posts too and conservation isn’t on your agenda.
Please answer these questions:
1) What American or group of Americans actually gives a shit about “victory”? (Don’t play the emotional tear-jerker crap by saying “soldiers and their families care” because we don’t fight wars just to make these people happy. (or do we?)
2) What “victories” have Americans gained by paying half of our annual budget for eight-plus years of comically inept wars waged in the Middle East? You said we removed Saddam Hussein. That’s not a “victory”, that’s covering the CIA’s ass after they installed him nearly 30 years ago. I mean, how has my life, or the lives of my future children, or any of the other Americans not fortunate enough to have been born with the names Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, been improved by this military endeavor?
3) Tell me why Afghanistan deserves American tax dollars for nation-building and a total “victory” but you oppose a federal stimulus program to create jobs and improve infrastructure here in the US?
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah, Bill, I will come out and admit my disappointment in the following:
Bailing out banks and wall street with sweetheart deals.
Bailing out big banks and letting community banks, the ones that actually loan to small business, swing in the wind.
A stimulus program with no actual goals and few strings and little oversight thus letting states spend on pet projects and shoring up budgets. It should have been called the state rescue program.
No jobs program that goes to people working on a national goal.
No industrial program to get American factories built.
Weak buy American program.
No way to deal with the trade in balance.
No investigations into how the economy was driven to near ruin and no regulations instituted or even re-instituted to prevent it happening again.
No investigations into the blatant corruption of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The number of Clinton people in the cabinet especially those overseeing the budget and financial sector. Much of the melt down can be laid at the feet of Clinton.
No talk of new trade policies and rules on out sourcing jobs.
No action on private and corporate tax cheats.
No review of anti-trust laws that are never or rarely enforced.
Getting the hell out of Iraq, completely.
The complete disregard of the progressives in the party.
I would like to see less talk more arm twisting.
Failure of leadership on Health Care.
Failure to get stand up to the Pentagon.
I could go on but to address your previous question about the speech: I am doubtful more troops would work however Pakistan has released Khan who built their bomb and Korea’s bomb and was about to work on who ever else wanted an off the shelf bomb. Both governments are unstable and dangerous. Pakistan’s secret service does not like us and supports the Taliban. We need to concentrate on the border, on the south and we need to convince NATO that we didn’t prop up Europe for them to bug out or sit in safe areas and they need to put troops where it matters. I hate the costs and think the pentagon needs to shed programs to put more money where the war is.
I am also disappointed in Republicans for not working on a problems. Strangely I find that the Libertarians and that Socialist in Vermount
In response to another comment. See in context »are making more sense that the major parties. It seems it is not the conservatives v. liberals but conservatives v. everyone else.
I have to agree with your analysis of Obama’s speech. However, It is purely political. While I doubt that we will be out on the date he suggested, it is likely we will be out, or on our way out, a year later before the election takes place.
I can also see how a surge will help turn the tide on the Taliban who have been creeping back into power. My problem is that we will have to leave sometime. And when we do, I cannot imagine a scenario where the Taliban do not quickly return. It’s very hard for me to believe that the Afgan army will ever be up to the task of keeping the Taliban out. Their tendency is to fight for tribes – not for a central government. This is where the strategy fails for me. If I believed that there was an answer to permanently swamping the Taliban, I’d be on board the strategy.
As for a victory in Iraq – I don’t see it. The original objective was not to liberate the Iraqi people by getting rid of Saddam and company. It was to seek out and destroy the alleged WMD that threatened us. I’m certainly not sorry to see Saddam go and, to the extent that it will make life better for Iraqis (I think the jury is still out on that), I’m pleased for them. But there is an underlying question that cannot be avoided. It is one thing for the US to strike first when it is in our national security interest to do so. It is not okay for us to preemptively decide whose country we will invade to get rid of regimes that do not please us. I know you will agree that there is a long list of regimes that we don’t like. Can we simply invade their countries because we determine these regimes to be bad for the people in those countries? By your definition of victory, this is what we set out to do and accomplished. I’m not sure that is a victory for the American way of life.
There is no “victor” in war. There is only the side that loses the least.
In this case, “victory” wouldn’t be an appropriate term to use simply because we’re about 6 years past the point where we could have claimed any type of victory.
Perhaps Reagan should have spent a fraction of the costs of his secret war on the Soviets, towards roads, schools, hospitals, etc. after the soviets pulled out of Afghan. in the 80’s?
Since obviously the absence of “victory” (more than the absence of victory) is driving you to despair, may I suggest you download a transcript of Obama’s speech, delete those offensive phrases such as “successful conclusion,” and insert “victory” in as many spots as you see fit.
Remember, you’re allowed to pretend. You can’t have forgotten already. Bush hasn’t been out of office that long.