I watched half of Obama's Dec 1st, 2009 speech to the cadets of West Point, in which he defended the escalation in Afghanistan. I couldn't watch the whole thing, because it made me feel as uneasy as some of the cadets looked whenever the camera zoomed in to show their reactions. I wasn't impressed either by Obama's arguments or his delivery and had the distinct feeling that he did not believe in half of what he was saying. He seemed to be playing devil's advocate. I think Obama goes along with the war in Afghanistan due to political calculations. Obama strikes me as a pragmatist, rather than an idealist, and much of what he says and does is based on politics rather than reason. I don't find pragmatism particularly objectionable, but it's not terribly inspiring either.
His response to people like me, who compare Afghanistan to Viet Nam, is as follows:
- The insurgency in Viet Nam was broad-based, while the Taliban is not.
- Al-Qaeda attacked our homeland, whereas Viet Nam did not.
- Our coalition in Afghanistan has broad international support.
Our so-called international coalition was bought and paid for in some cases and seemed halfhearted at best. To me, the strongest argument is #2. I've argued against that salient point elsewhere in my blog. I'll be the first to admit that it is natural and justified to want to smash those who attacked us.
Sometimes, a giant must ignore the sting of a gnat, when there are dragons lying about in wait. Our only real enemy in the modern world is China. Al Qaeda is a joke. It is a can of assorted nuts with few pistachios.
In deciding a proper course of action, one must weigh the costs against the benefits. This is a difficult medicine for wealthy and arrogant men to accept. The wealthy elite sacrificed trillions from the public coffer for vengeance. Now they demand that the working class, students, the poor and elderly pay the bill in full. Only the lower classes are being required to make sacrifices.
No comments:
Post a Comment