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.
I am the last person in the world to think that communism is a good thing. But colonialism, particularly French colonialism, in Africa and Asia, was not exactly a great thing either, if you look at the record of violence and poverty that has been left in its wake. Consequently, while the communist side is certainly the wrong side, it turned out that putting up with the colonial bastards because they were our bastards was not a winning strategy either.
As to the rest of what you describe, that is why effective counterinsurgency strategies are necessary and why they work. You want to assure the nonpolitical guy who is just trying to get by day to day, that you will protect him, that the other guy is not going to win, and that he will be even better off if he can provide you with the local information you need about geography, resources, and movements of the enemy that you need to win village by village and town by town.
I think the negative effects of European colonialism have been much exaggerated by leftist historians. European governors were far better than the native rulers. Were they as brutal as native rulers in suppressing rebellions? Definitely not. Were native economies much improved from having been integrated into European empires? Definitely. The real problem with the post-colonial experience isn't colonial rule; it independence, which resulted in a reversion to the historical patterns of pre-European rule. The unfortunate reality is that native rule was always characterized by the incompetence and self-absorbed greed of the traditional native aristocracies. Communist or non-communist, traditional or newly-constituted, the native aristocracies are ultimately responsible for driving their economies into the ground.
Let me put it this way - for centuries, Europeans ran huge empires without seeing significant illegal immigration from the colonies. As soon as independence broke out, large numbers of illegals from the colonies suddenly showed up in Europe. Why? Because the fools’ paradise that was European rule was at an end. The natives would now have to deal with the arbitrary brutality and corruption of local despots - the same people who had treated them like slaves for thousands of years.
I also read it as a warning that his criticism will become harsher and more damning if Obama effs it up worse.
Moreover, you are addressing a question never asked, and that is somewhat irrelevant, which is the question of whether the local populations were better after colonialism than before. I am not going to address that question.
The important strategic point is that everywhere that colonialism has existed, any regime where an outside power dominated a local population, however underdeveloped the population before hand, sooner or later the local population, having become better educated and more developed, has sought to cast off that yoke and cease to bear oppressive burdens from their overlords. Read the Declaration of Independence.
That in the 20th century communists sought to exploit anti-colonial "sentiment" to spread communism, does not justify trying to preserve colonialism, or make the local opposition to colonialism less valid. That communists have been able to exploit the existence of oppressive local leadership does not somehow justify that oppressive leadership.
The point of effective counterinsurgency is to be able to provide a better alternative than the communists provide. When the communists at least promise a better life than the miserable one we were fighting to preserve, then loss is inevitable. Getting on the right side of heaven is the key idea of Sun Tsu. American idealism is the belief that the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence are universal, not just applicable to some guys who didn't like a tea-tax.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why so many here want to hand more our precious blood and American treasure as a blank check to Obama to use in a futile nation-building crusade in Afghanistan. I guess that’s why they call the Republican Party, the stupid party.
Actually, they left the third largest economy (by GDP) in the western Hemisphere. It also helped, however, that unlike the Brits, the Portuguese sent only men, who bred with the natives and then the Africans (mass European immigration to Brazil was a late 19th/early 20th century phenomenon).
Angola and Mozambique were different in that they were discovered later, and the Salazar government didn't start sending emigrants over in large numbers until the 1950s, at which time colonialism was on the wane.
Radical? Obama is to the right of Bush on Afghanistan. He has ALREADY sent MORE troops there than Bush ever had.
Someone who brings up the past to make a point has to address the whole past, not leave out the bits that challenge his thesis. Europeans left their colonies in a hurry because some ambitious native leaders fought expensive (in men and materiel) revolts against them and others threatened to do so. Europeans owed no more to the natives than native empire-builders did.
bkmk
Cronkite ended up being far more lefty than we knew at the time
Dan Rathers “thugs” comments at the 1968 DNC convention notwithstanding, the media was not overly sympathetic to the Yippies and Hippies and the youth were considered them part of the problem....the establishment.
The radicals were not enamoured with the Dems either but the more pragmatic liked Mccarthy and maybe RFK a bit.
Did hell freeze over in Kerrey’s Mind?
Something about 0bamadinejad’s hate America remarks, apparent have awaken Kerrey from his liberal stances the past 8+ years.
I don’t like him, but he did a good thing writing this opposition to zer0’s naive plan. When I heard hussein wanted to give the Taliban part of governing Afghani people I thought of the book “The Bookseller of Kabul” an excellent account of how they “govern” and the trouble with the customs there in daily life for women. Zer0 tries to preach to us like an anthropology professor on how the “indigenous society” is best for the residents even if they live in the 11th century.
You might want to read the following MOH citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a SEAL team leader during action against enemy aggressor (Viet Cong) forces. Acting in response to reliable intelligence, Lt. (j.g.) Kerrey led his SEAL team on a mission to capture important members of the enemy’s area political cadre known to be located on an island in the bay of Nha Trang. In order to surprise the enemy, he and his team scaled a 350-foot sheer cliff to place themselves above the ledge on which the enemy was located. Splitting his team in 2 elements and coordinating both, Lt. (jg.) Kerrey led his men in the treacherous downward descent to the enemy’s camp. Just as they neared the end of their descent, intense enemy fire was directed at them, and Lt. (jg.) Kerrey received massive injuries from a grenade that exploded at his feet and threw him backward onto the jagged rocks. Although bleeding profusely and suffering great pain, he displayed outstanding courage and presence of mind in immediately directing his element’s fire into the heart of the enemy camp. Utilizing his radio, Lt. (jg.) Kerrey called in the second element’s fire support, which caught the confused Viet Cong in a devastating crossfire. After successfully suppressing the enemy’s fire, and although immobilized by his multiple wounds, he continued to maintain calm, superlative control as he ordered his team to secure and defend an extraction site. Lt. (jg.) Kerrey resolutely directed his men, despite his near unconscious state, until he was eventually evacuated by helicopter. The havoc brought to the enemy by this very successful mission cannot be over-estimated. The enemy soldiers who were captured provided critical intelligence to the allied effort. Lt. (jg.) Kerrey’s courageous and inspiring leadership, valiant fighting spirit, and tenacious devotion to duty in the face of almost overwhelming opposition sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.
He is a true hero. Too many people like this are shoved under the door out of our own shame that we probably would not have done anything near if we were in that saturation. There are many that were just as brave that we will not know what they did.
“You might want to read the following MOH citation:”
No doubt kerrey was a bona fide warrior and hero and I salute him for what he was willing to do back then and for what he did now.
My issue is with the new ROE from McChrystal in Afghanastand. McChrystal felt the USA was too” preoccupied with the protection of our own forces”
so McChrystal changed the ROE, can only return fire to the insurgents whose weapons you can see. Can’t call in air or artillery to positions where you can see all the participants, so no civilians will be killed.
this is resulting in our young military being killed. This is pure BS and the insurgents are using this every way they can.
sometimes our stupidity still amazes me
Pay no attention to that little man hiding behind the curtain. The Great Oz has spoken.
I don’t know if Gen. McChrystal served in RVN, but there were areas designaed as free-fire zones, in which any person observed was assumed to be NVA or VC and could be taken out. Most of those were in wild areas, like the Rung Sat where the SEAL teams operated, but also in areas with possible civilian populace. How to do that in Afghanistan apparently has not been worked out....I agree the ROE there are bad.
McChrystal was commissioned june 76 from the Academy
I understand his thinking. that to win over the civilians we shouldn’t wholesaley kill them but DAMN to say being preoccupied with protecting our own is a wrong strategy
and then to implement one that gets our own killed.
Bull chit
bring them home
‘ I dont get everyone’s slobber over mcchrystal. I don’t think they paid attention to what he said in that leaked memo.
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.