In 1940, Churchill appeared before the House of Commons and described Britain’s goal in World War II: “I can answer in one word: victory; victory at all costs, victory despite all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
This hyperbolic rube was too unsophisticated to appreciate that the goal doesn’t apply to overseas contingency operations or kinetic military actions.
As I wrote last night, the president and the Democrats are like the French in The Simpsons, for whom “victory” isn’t in their vocabulary, unless it applies to their domestic enemies.
Michael Walsh wasn’t impressed, either.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Nor was John Tabin:
President Obama isn’t terribly concerned with winning wars.
In his speech last night, Obama talked about “our effort to wind down this war,” “responsibly end[ing] these wars,” and “tak[ing] comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding.” He did not use the words “win” or “winning”; the word “victory” appeared only in a reference to the killing of Osama bin Laden.
To these people, wars are for “ending,” not “winning.” It was something that I and others noticed in the debates in 2008, but not enough others noticed. The funny thing is, I suspect that they even realize that we notice, but they just can’t bring themselves to use the word.
[Update a few minutes later]
Could the president’s political decision backfire on him?
It bears repeating that the deadline imposed by the president has nothing to do with military or strategic calculation. It has everything to do with an electoral calculation. President Obama wants those troops out two months before Americans go to the voting booth.
This may prove a disastrous political calculation, too, however. If the war is going badly in the summer and fall of 2012, it will be because of the decision the president made this week. Everyone will know he did it against the advice of his commanders. Everyone will know he did it for political reasons. So if the war is going badly a year from now, whom do you think the American people will blame? There will still be 70,000 American troops in Afghanistan, but as part of a losing effort. Will Americans reward Obama at the polls under those circumstances?
It’s not like he’s been politically brilliant so far. The tragic thing is that he’s doing something militarily stupid to serve his political needs.
[Early afternoon update]
You don’t say. Afghan women fear Obama’s peace talks with the Taliban. I’m sure NOW is fine with it, though, because he supports abortion.
So if the war is going badly a year from now, whom do you think the American people will blame?
So if the war is going badly a year from now, who do you think is going to tell this to the American people? Our unbiased journalists will tell them that things are just fine over there, a credit to Our Beloved President’s wisdom.