A frustrating speech. There’s much to applaud in the nuts and bolts. Assuming the president’s confidence is borne out and U.S. allies actually dispatch several thousand more troops, he will have gone most of the way in meeting his on-the-ground commander’s request for additional forces. That’s an enormous leap in capability and firepower that Generals McChrystal and Petraeus will no doubt put to good use in reversing the war’s tide — especially if the president can also deliver on his promise to have the bulk of the surge in place in time for the 2010 fighting season. In making this historic commitment of additional blood and treasure in defense of America’s vital interests, the president has openly rejected the defeatist counsel of his own party’s powerful left wing — no easy task and one for which he deserves real credit and support.
But if the president largely got the policy hardware right, the software left something to be desired. The speech in places was uncomfortably defensive. The continued trashing of his predecessor unfortunate. But most distressing was the unmistakable subtext of withdrawal, rather than victory, that ran through the heart of the president’s remarks. The security of America and the world is at stake in Afghanistan — yet we need to begin drawing down our forces within a year after their arrival and leave the job in the hands of the (allegedly corrupt and incompetent) locals because the effort has already taken too long and cost too much. Hardly Churchillian. Not the sort of stuff likely to rally a war-weary public at home, get fearful Afghans off the fence, or begin breaking the fighting spirit of the Taliban. Of course, at the end of the day, all those things can most convincingly be accomplished by the progress that our newly reinforced troops achieve on the field of battle in 2010 and 2011. But their effort will be immeasurably enhanced by President Obama’s rapid emergence as a wartime leader who exudes the conviction that there simply is no substitute for victory, and that nothing could be more harmful to our country than defeat in a conflict deemed vital to our national interests.
The president could best advance that critical task by adding an Afghan stop to next week’s trip to Copenhagen for the climate conference and Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize. He badly needs to go see the troops, tell them in person that help is on the way, and make clear his certitude in the justness of their cause and the unequivocal nature of his commitment to defeating our enemies. He should also make sure to reiterate to them what in many ways was the most bracing part of tonight’s speech: His inspiring recitation of America’s unparalleled contributions and sacrifices on behalf of the security and wellbeing of the human race over the last century. And while he’s at it, he’d do well to remind his audiences in Copenhagen and Oslo of the very same thing.
— John P. Hannah, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served as national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2005 to 2009.