Andy blogs the presidential address ...

Andrew Heller | MLive By Andrew Heller | MLive The Flint Journal
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on December 02, 2009 at 6:00 AM

It is five minutes to eight, Tuesday evening, as I begin this. The following are my thoughts while watching President Obama announce his plans to send more troops into the dry, mountainous Vietnam that is Afghanistan. Perhaps you detect my bias going in. It'll be interesting to see how/if my views change as his speech unfolds.

We begin ...

Pretty brave to make this speech before people (cadets) who are likely to die over there ...


He says we need to remember why we're there. 9/11. As if we could forget.

Tollybahn? Whenever he says that I think of Harry Belafonte and the Day Oh song.

He mentions Iraq. Interesting point dead ahead, I bet. He says we're getting out of Iraq, as promised. That'll be justification for more troops in Afghanistan. "See, I took them out of there, so you know I'll take 'em out of Afghanistan."

I doubt it.

I can't shake the feeling that Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon made the same arguments: "Oh, we'll get out when need be." But they never answered the question, "What's the concrete goal?" And I doubt Obama can either. This is not a war like we've known war where the goal is to defeat a government. This is guerilla warfare, and that's entirely a different thing. Better to leave, let the Taliban relax, then hit 'em hard. Give them nothing to guerilla against.

Here it is: 30,000 troops. But only for 18 months. Echoes of Kennedy ... and Johnson ... and Nixon ... and whatever Soviet premiere sent troops into Afghanistan. Won't the Taliban know they just have to hold out 18 months?

He just said we've been there 8 years. If we can't do the job in eight years, what gives him the idea another 18 months will do it?

We didn't think you "took this decision lightly." That doesn't make it a better decision, though.

He just got to the need for stabilizing Afghanistan.  But that's nation-building, isn't it?

Advisers. Another Vietnam buzzword.

He says we'll work with our partners, meaning other countries, so are they sending another 30,000 troops each and spending enough to pay for 10 years of health care? Uh, no. Then they're not partners. They're token-efforters.

He brings up the Vietnam argument. A "false reading of history." I disagree that it's not a valid comparison. 

Reasonable cost? Nearly a trillion dollars and who knows how many lives is a reasonable course?

He's on to the economy now. Hearing this, and knowing the cost, I think you can kiss health care goodbye.  Too much ammo for the Republicans.

Nimble and precise in our use of power? I hear  Edwin Starr moaning, "War, what is it good for?" I know the answer. At least this war in this way at this time.

Listening to him, you can't help but think he's not telling us this is mostly about nuclear weapons and the worry that terrorists will get them from Pakistan somehow. If it's likelier than he's letting on, he should say so. That's a justification we'd get behind.

He's ending on a typical rhetorical flourish. It helps. But not a lot. I passionately, viscerally disagree with this policy.

So I guess I didn't change my mind.  This is going to turn out badly.

May I be so, so wrong ....