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 can't think of any group of people who miss President Bush more than our troops in harm's way.
We really need to pray hard for them. They have no CinC any more, but they're still fighting the war.
helping our military and saving their lives is not in the to do list
getting homos to be open in the military and have a bunch of drama queen homos is
No words express how I feel about him, his freeloading family and folks like nancy pelosi.
they make me sick
helping our military and saving their lives is not in the to do list
getting homos to be open in the military and have a bunch of drama queen homos is
No words express how I feel about him, his freeloading family and folks like nancy pelosi. and a bunch of people who call them journalists
they make me sick
I heard that CNN is a great news organisation
LOL
Yea pigs flying outside my house too
Bob Kerry, Sheila Johnson.......seems to be a pattern here....who next?...Barbara Strisand?.....George Clooney ?.......
“Even a stopped watch.............................
Bob Kerrey’s a pretty good guy, Democrat or not.
Where have the Clinton’s been lately? BO must have some really bad stuff on them that’s keeping them quiet.
Bob Kerry and Diane Feinstein both basically calling BO a chicken sh&^t. I’m hoping the gloves will be off now. Yes, to a previous poster, the radical thinking that BO was raised on is producing great conflict for him. He and Ayers and their ilk hate the military might of the USA and that does present that “tiny” problem.
Actually the truth is something like that. The side we were backing were the heirs of the French colonials, large landholders extracting oppressive rents from peasants.
One of the problems with Vietnam was that socially, economically and politically we were not on the right side of the war. Thus winning hearts and minds was nearly an impossible task, not that that is a tactic we tried much of.
It was one of the worst fought wars in the history of warfare. We completely overmatched the other side militarily and still managed to keep so much of the population against us that anything like winning was impossible.
John Kerry did not get a Medal of Honor. He actually did serve in Vietnam. This is about Bob Kerrey, who also served and lost the lower part of a leg in combat. This Kerrey deserves our respect.
kristinn, Thanks for posting this.
I need new glasses.
No problem. :)
Hope you are right.
What is with Feinstein???
Well, the perspective you present is what I got in the news while growing up and what I was taught at the university. I was born in ‘64, so a little to young to have been a participant (at least on the American side).
It’s NOT what I’m getting from Lewis Sorley’s _A Better War_, which covers 1968-1975 and which I’m reading right now, or what I gleaned from Moyars _Triumph Forsaken_.
Thanks for the ping.
Telling Obamna to emulate President Bush (in anything) is probably an exercise in futility.
And Obama probably sees it as an insult. I wonder if Rahm will attack Kerry before sunset tomorrow?
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.