There's Only One Vote That Counts In "Toughness" On Terror

Watcher of Worldlings ^ | 1/12/10 | Chris van Avery

[SolitarySaint]

The Washington Post recently tried to defend the President's policies in the War on Terror against attacks from the Right that Mr. Obama has reverted to pre-9/11 policies of treating terrorism as a mere law enforcement issue. The Post framed their counterfire as follows:

These critics have set up a straw Obama, a weak and naive leader who allegedly takes terrorism lightly, thinks that playing nicely with terrorists will make them stop, and fails to understand the threat that the United States faces from violent extremists. ... There are two ways to show how baseless these attacks are: examining Mr. Obama's words and examining his actions.

At first blush the Post makes a reasonable case that Mr. Obama's approach may be different, but it's still "tough". The President has made some strong statements, particularly in recent months, to communicate America's resolve. He has also increased pressure on terrorists and militants with a troop surge in Afghanistan, an increase in predator strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and military assistance in Yemen to counter their al Qaeda affiliate.

There's only one problem: all of these judgements are made measuring Western actions, using Western standards. Unfortunately for the Post--and Americans--the only useful measure of "toughness" in this case is whether the enemy perceives the actions to be "tough". From that perspective, one can only conclude Mr. Obama's not coming across well.

The proof that the militants and terrorists see an opportunity to gain more ground has been in the news for weeks:

[ModelBreaker]

The only way to judge this is whether, at the end of his term, we are closer to winning the war on Islamism than we are today. He can talk and act as tough as he likes. The real questions are: (1) is he taking sufficient steps to win the war and (2) Does he even think of this situation in terms like win and lose or is it just a nuisance to him to manage for the effect it will have on voters?

[Pollster1]

In Bush’s final year, the last president of America as a free country turned the war around. We started 2008 “having lost Iraq but with a foolish and futile plan to send in more troops” and ended “having won in Iraq, so it’s time to pull out our troops”. The change occurred because Bush’s team adapted to changes from the other side faster than the terrorists could adapt to the changes we made. As for Afghanistan, we were at least holding on there through 2008, not losing significant ground.

If Obama takes the win Bush created in Iraq and turns it into anything less, Obama and his anti-American socialists should be judged based on that failure. If Obama takes the fairly stable situation in Afghanistan and messes it up worse than he already has, he should again be judged, not excused because “Bush’s strategy failed” but blamed because he and his team failed by not adapting as the situation changed.