President Obama's Speech On Afghanistan: Bookerista Views

Black moderates and conservatives weigh in on U.S. President Barack Obama's speech last night at U.S. Military Academy at West Point:

Kenneth Durden: "More Troops For Afghanistan"

The libertarian-conservative blogger opines about last night's speech: "President Obama will send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Good. It's good, not because I love war, but we already have men and women in the country and they need support. Either support them or bring them home. One interesting note from the president's speech was that he finally mentioned a 'broad coalition of 43 nations.' Did these nations suddenly come on board? No. But in typical petty fashion, Obama couldn't even give a slight nod to his predecessor (yet he bows before the world). He did manage to take another jab at Bush of course. When are we going to see some true leadership?"

He continues: "Also, why is it that the only time Democrats seem to be worried about costs is when it comes to defending the country. National defense is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of the federal government. It's all of the other nonsense that needs to be examined or better yet, eliminated. No, it doesn't mean we should give a blank check to the the 'military industrial complex.' MIC is the thing that naive liberals like to bring up to show that they're intelligent and aware. Sadly, too many of us don't realize that the war is so much broader than a few guys hiding in caves. If that's all it was then we would have been done a long time ago."

Slyram: "Obama At West Point: Afghanistan and Agriculture"

The moderate Democratic blogger in Georgia writes: "Last night, the leader of the free world gave his blueprint for our efforts in Afghanistan and our attempts to stabilizing that dangerous region and he mentioned agriculture. I told you so; I told you so. Ag is vital to our new soft power approach around the world — we still can blow some things up with fire power from the [P]each [S]tate. We are talking giving a man a fish and teaching him to fish, or better, giving him a seed and bring his family into the legal farming global economy. Poppy, heroin and cocaine are cash crops in that region and the money funds terrorist operations. So the U.S. Agriculture Secretary helps sow the seeds of love, beat swords into plows or whatever. Ag research universities in Athens, Fort Valley, Tuskegee, Tifton and Greensboro could design crop varieties and farm equipment that could indirectly help bring our troops home and create new markets for our agri-business interests."

Peter Kirsanow: "What Our Adversaries And Competitors Heard Last Night"

The conservative Republican lawyer in Cleveland, Ohio opines: "The Taliban and al-Qaeda were not the only ones marking their calendars while listening to President Obama's speech last night. Certain parties in Tehran and Moscow were making self-interested calculations as well. In those cities, the lines from the speech that mattered most were those pertaining to the 18-month timetable. If the president of the United States pronounces this war to be so important, yet spends much of his time plotting an exit seemingly untethered to victory (indeed, doesn't even define what 'victory' in Afghanistan would be), that sends a signal to our adversaries likely to produce headaches in the future: Be patient, and your aims shall be realized. If there was any doubt in Tehran that no serious effort would be made to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, that doubt was markedly diminished, if not extinguished, last night. And the gleam of adventurism in Mr. Putin's eyes shines brighter today as well. The dog whistle in last night's speech alerted a few wolves as well."

Ripclawe: "Obama's Cold Indifference By the Numbers Afghanistan Speech"

The conservative Republican blogger in Florida writes: "You can read the transcript but even reading it there is nothing that stands out from the speech that Obama really gives a damn about the outcome of Afghanistan. It was a typical speech that hit upon the talking points including blaming Bush but it was not inspiring. Whoever wrote it clearly did not believe what he/she was writing on paper. Listening to Obama made the speech worse, he had no emotion and he did not seem pleased to be there giving it or believing the words coming out of his mouth. There was no hint of looking to be victorious in Afghanistan, just a long enough timetable with just enough troops where he can't win but at least get out of it in a political sense that doesn't harm him. This was pure politics, not a President of the United States looking to win a war."

Clifton B.: "Obama's Afghanistan Speech At West Point"

The conservative blogger in New Jersey opines: "Normally when Obama gives a speech I do not watch, I prefer to read them instead [full transcript here]. This is because I cannot stand the teleprompter head movements and reading his speeches are often far more revealing. That being said, I did both this time just to be sure. The first thing I noticed was that Obama seems to be making a trend with using prodigious venues when he speaks about national security matters. Remember last time when he spoke about ending enhanced interrogations; he did so in from of the Constitution at the National Archives with a booming echo too. This time the venue is West Point with row after row of young cadets trained on his every word. Question: Are these venues chosen to give gravitas to because there is fear that his words lack weight? I seem to remember several presidents speaking about grave matters of national security from the Oval office, no need for fancy venues."

He continues: "The venue issue aside, Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan could actually be workable, but plan seems almost deliberately hobbled by the stated 18 month exit window. I simply cannot understand the need for publicly announcing that we will be ready to pack our bags and leave after 18 months. If the idea is to pressure the Afghani government into action, why not simply relay that message in private. If the idea is to pressure the Afghan people to join forces, the exit date is surely is a let down [sic]. The other thing that I did not understand was given all the time Obama took dithering on this issue, how come there is no explanation as to why he did not give McChrystal the 40,000 troops he asked for? Why just 30,000 and not the 40,000? What was the reason for the reduction?"

More: "Because I have great faith in our armed forces, I think this plan may work despite the unnecessary public announcement of our departure date. However, the cynic in me sees failure and the exit date being used as our excuse to pack it in consequences be damn. The timing is perfect to bring the troops home and patch thing up with his base all in time for reelection. I am even willing to bet that even at that late date, Obama will still try to blame Bush for the loss."

Elizabeth Wright: "The Peace Prize President Sends A Christmas Gift"

The conservative blogger in New York City opposes President Obama's troop increase: "And so, more 21-year-old Americans will not get to live out their 20's. Not because they're defending a homeland under siege or even in threat of danger, but due only to deceiving politicians, who are egged on by zealots whose warped sense of patriotism is tied to their love of war. Here are some trenchant insights from David Lindorff in Holiday Greetings: President and Man-of-Peace Obama Has a Xmas Present for Afghanistan."

Torrey Spears: "Theatre Of The Absurd: The Obama's War Edition"

The conservative Republican blogger in Florida wasn't feeling last night's speech, and argues that President Obama's heart isn't in support of this troop surge: "It absolutely makes no sense to unleash the military into the battlezone in a time of war with an artificial timetable as if to suggest 'get it done - or we're out of there.' By comparison: you would never send a football team into the Super Bowl to play 3 quarters, and then by quarter 4 if you're tied or losing - you start pulling the team off the field. You don't go into a marriage with the notion that if it doesn't work after 18 months, you'll just call it quits. No one makes this kind of commitment without publicly proclaiming your completion time. Look, even if you want to set an artificial timetable amongst yourself - fine - but do you need to announce it to the free world only to try and appease your base?"

Mr. Spears continues his commentary about the president's speech: "No one, Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, wants to 'occupy' Iraq or Afghanistan forever. No one wants an open-ended military establishment in either region. What I believe the American people do want is to feel safe, and to bring those who would threaten our security at home or abroad dealt with. I believe this troop surge has the opportunity to help us achieve such goals. However in a time of war, the Commander in Chief must be vigilant and steadfast, and spur on resolve and fortitude within the nation - both civilian and military. What we do not need is a partisan history lesson of the past eight years, mixed in with a academic history lesson of the region, and a speech in which it was painfully obvious the man did not want to give."

Ron Bolling: "No Wins, No Victory, Just Retreat"

The conservative blogger in Atlanta, Ga. wonders why victory wasn't the speech's focus: "I am thinking that General George A. Custer [pictured] would be proud. He would be witnessing a greater tactical error than his fight at Little Big Horn. Our president has just informed our enemies that we will send more troops to fight them but we will withdraw those same troops in 18 months and end our hostilities. Ironically this time line coincides with the proposed withdrawal of forces in Iraq and during the 2012 presidential hunt. In his speech to the Cadets at West Point, B-Rock spewed over 4,600 words about what he wanted to do in Afghanistan, how the previous administration did not place emphasis on this war and how we need to forge greater alliances with the Muslim world. But not once did he speak of victory. Nor did he mention that the ultimate goal is to win. All of this reminds me of the liberal families that send their little ones to play soccer or T-Ball but refuse to keep score for fear of winning all the while claiming that having winners and losers will hurt the little screamers' esteem."

He continues: "How do you speak in front of America's future military leaders and never mention victory nor winning? I truly hope that Malia and Sasha never have their dad speak at their soccer rally. He could be a real buzz kill at inspiration for a win. Next time you want to rally the troops Mr. President, please have a Knute Rockne moment and talk about winning! In America we play to win. Victory is the result of our pain and efforts. Please remind those who will be leading our troops of that in your next speech to them.