Posted on 10/11/2009 11:34:51 AM PDT by kristinn
As the debate on Afghanistan comes to the fore, a well respected Democrat has urged Barack Obama to emulate the wartime courage and leadership of former President George W. Bush by implementing the 'surge' strategy recommended by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Medal of Honor recipient of the Vietnam war, wrote an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal Friday night that congratulated Obama on his Nobel Peace Prize but then went on to criticize Obama for being "naive" and apologizing for America too much. The news media has ignored this article by the former 9/11 Commission member and candidate Obama supporter. It has been noted by a handful of bloggers.
Kerrey admits he is tempering his criticism, but his words still sting:
On vision, President Obama is very inspiring. He has given moderates in Muslim countries room to move by speaking to them directly and respectfully, while at the same time continuing to wage an aggressive and necessary battle against radical Islamists who have declared war on the U.S. However, he has made too many apologies. And at this point, his strategy is too naïve and has too little coherence to be called a strategy. If the issue of foreign policy had been more important in his presidential campaign—and therefore important to the electorate—I might be more critical. And if I weren't a supporter, my judgment would be harsher. But in this realm, I'm still hoping for improvement.
Kerrey implies Bush is a "great American leader" for his decision to 'surge' to victory in Iraq after the 2006 elections:
In December 2006, President George W. Bush was faced with a similarly difficult foreign policy decision. The Republicans had suffered tremendous losses in the November election, in part because of the conduct of the war in Iraq. At the time, the unpopular Republican president was being pressured by ascendant congressional Democrats and some members of his own party into withdrawing from Iraq. Failure in Iraq loomed, as public opinion for the effort to help the democratically elected government survive had faded thanks to a series of tactical blunders and inaccurate assessments of what would be needed to accomplish the mission.
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision....
...There is surely a strong temptation to conform his better judgment to popular opinion. If he chooses this politically safe route and does not give his military commander on the ground the resources needed to win, history will judge him harshly. Great American leaders of our past have ignored popular sentiment and pressed on during the darkest hours, even when setbacks give rhetorical ammunition to the skeptics.
Kerrey concludes with an impassioned plea for victory:
...our leaders must remain focused on the fact that success in Afghanistan bolsters our national security and yes, our moral reputation. This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror.
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
It's a sad state of affairs when Saturday Night Live gets more attention from the media when it comes to criticizing Obama on the war than someone with Bob Kerrey's qualifications.
At least the former Senator could no longer take it and spoke up. Good for him.
It wouldn’t surprise me, MU!
“... Americans don’t want to lose this war ...”
A really good kid from our church was killed over there. His dad told the younger dads at a recent camp out to take time for such times with their kids b/c they don’t know how long they will have together.
Anyway, he and his family gave all. In a way, he and other like him stood in the gap for us. Maybe my little boys won’t have to go to war, thanks to the good guys.
If the generals think we can win it and see a way forward, I think Obama should take their advice.
I prayed when my boys were born that there wouldn't be a war when they got older. Our younger son enlisted 2 weeks before 9/11 and every moment of his two deployments was nearly unbearable for us, but God graciously allowed him to come home.
I don't take for granted for one second what we were given, and I pray for each member of each family of those who have fallen and the unbearable grief they have to deal with.
The thought that our troops, who truly stand in the gap for us, now have a CinC who doesn't give a rip about them is devastating, especially after having President Bush, who respected and loved them. I doubt that Obama will make the right decision. That would take judgement and character, and he has neither.
PRAY for our troops.
I’d like to hear from Sam Nunn and Zell Miller.
Good for Bob Kerrey. It looks like he’s one of just a handful of rats who cares more about his country and the fate of our armed services members than he does for partisan politics.
I realize Kerrey isn’t running for anything, but it still took some cojones to write the piece, given the rats’ extremely heavy grip on power.
.....and finagled a purple heart for stubbing his toe or something.
How can people be members here and not know the difference between John Kerry and Bob Kerrey?
Good grief.
bttt
K, we have to do something.
No way in hell these guys will go through the hell of what was done to their elder brothers in Nam.
lol..so who you gonna believe?
we have plenty of Vietnam vets here maybe they can answer..
Hollywood will find out soon that when push comes to shove the public gives a rats ass what they think/say.
Ditto!
>>> lol..so who you gonna believe? <<<
Walter Cronkite, of course!
He looked like such an affable, avuncular man when I watched him on the tube in the ‘70s. A paragon of objectivity who spoke with the voice of Authority and Reason. He was a high priest of the Fourth Estate, whose purpose it was to deliver to me unbiased news that was in the public interest, information I needed to know in order to be a good US citizen. News I could trust!
I’ve grown up since then, and my views on Unce Waltie (and TV and newspapers in general) are different. My, how times have changed!
This would mean something were it not for obama’s desire to destroy America.
Kerrey served in the United States Navy as a SEAL from 1966 to 1969 during the Vietnam War, lost the lower part of one leg in combat, and received the Medal of Honor. He was a member of Phi Gamma Delta.
Blind Squirrel....Acorn comes to mind.
This is what leftists have put up as the reason that Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam encountered large and debilitating communist insurgencies that required massive American troop intervention. For years, I believed this mantra. Then I read the rest of what they had to say about insurgencies, namely that they invariably win. Which is headshakingly wrong. Every Latin American country has had communist insurgencies at one time or another. The only two countries in which the insurgencies have won are Cuba and Nicaragua. Ditto with Southeast Asia. Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Burma and Indonesia all encountered communist insurgencies and defeated them soundly.
The key difference with Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam? None of the countries that beat their domestic insurgencies had a long common border with Communist China, through which supplies could be shipped with impunity to the guerrillas and training could be provided with no threat to the sanctuaries in China itself. The Communists won in those three countries because (according to a Chinese source) the Chinese alone spent over $10b in free money assisting their comrades across the border, back when $10b was real money, and the Russians gave the North Vietnamese the credit they needed to purchase Migs, tanks and artillery that were subsequently used by the NVA to overrun South Vietnam, even as Congress cut off South Vietnam's aid. The North Vietnamese were still paying off Russian loans in the early 90's, before the Russians agreed to write the loan off in exchange for the termination of their lease of Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay facilities, as well as lease payments that were in arrears.
I can’t believe this leftist propaganda that you are regurgitating is appearing here! Go to Vietnam and talk to the people there, including those in the Northern part of the country. They will tell you that they wish the South and the US had won!
Besides, military victory and the support of the population are distinct things. Most of the time, the people are just sitting around supporting their families and hoping to avoid being conscripted by the armies fighting around them. And for good reason. They know that the parties to the war aren't fighting it for their benefit. It's an outright struggle for power in which both sides are looking to them for employment as cannon fodder.
Kerry is considered the anti-christ among many New York hipster youths for his attempt to make the New School a credible academic institution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.