Obama Speech On Iraq

By Semperpapa

I read the transcripts and even listened to the man’s words in his 19+ minute’s litany of words that were typical of the deflated Obama. Gone are the histrionics of a campaign master, even if the true meaning of his words were just another demonstration of his continuous campaigning. Except this time, he was showing none of the energy and motivation that were his trademarks during his ascension to the Presidency.

This was supposed to be the speech in which he declared the end of combat operations in Iraq, moving our strategy from Operation Iraqi Freedom to the new catchy Operation New Dawn. And this was also the speech in which he would reiterate the debt that our Nation owes to those who have stepped up and volunteered, risking and sacrificing in ways that common civilians like me have really no idea of in the least.

The words were there. At times, by closing my eyes and just concentrating on the phonetics only, transcending the person they were coming from, they sounded well meaning and justly exalting the true architects of the success that our Country has achieved in Iraq.
But there is always a twisted side in the words of this President: the truth of what everyone knows about his lack of any interest in anything related to the Military and Foreign Policy in general.

One cannot separate the history of this man in regard to Iraq and the convolution of his well written words. This is the man who, with his eyes already on the big prize, took on the role of dissent against the action that then President Bush was embarking in Iraq when Bush proposed the troop surge in 2006. And he filled that role perfectly, as he came out very publicly to assert his rejection to the surge, claiming unnamed Military sources that had given him precious information about the futility of the effort.

His rejection of the troop surge in Iraq was only the culmination of his opposition to the entire Iraq War. It is understood that part of the beauty of the American system is that dissenting voices are allowed to be heard within the parameters of decency, but then senator Obama attached his dissent with others in Congress in the attempt to turn an entire population against not just the war or President Bush, but also against the Military itself.
People like Senators Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin, Carl Levin and Dianne Feinstein, Representatives like John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, all smelled the blood in the water and launched in the feeding frenzy that would have made bull sharks step aside, as did Sen. Harry Reid with his now infamous “This war is lost” outrageous statement.
Except that in this case the blood was coming from America’s sons and daughters and it was spilled in the sands of Iraq.

What such attitude tells me is that the political agenda of such characters, including the man who would become Commander-in Chief, was much more important than the lives of those men and women bleeding and dieing in Iraq, because there is always time for political posturing after the blood stops being spilled and our forces would be back home. Instead, the systematic tearing down of Bush’s policy and the denigration of the mortal efforts being made by our Military served only one purpose: to destroy the morale of our troops. Or at least that was the hope.

In a move that must have infuriated the Democrat opposition, the surge worked: violence receded gradually, the Al Ambar Awakening started to take hold and the political scene also cleared up somewhat, all this caused by the fact that the additional troops had given the Iraqi people the trust in an America that was going to see the job through.
Ultimately, the very same accomplishment about which Obama boasted tonight, was made possible by his predecessor’s policy that he had opposed so bitterly.

It was interestingly disturbing to hear this President speak such words of recognition toward the U.S. Military, while in my mind is still fresh the memory of his ideological closeness with groups like Code Pink, whose founder Jodie Evans was a very prolific fund raiser for candidate Obama; and it is hard to imagine Obama being truthful about his commitment to taking care of those Veterans who paid such high price for America, thinking back at his consideration of a plan to make wounded Veterans financially responsible for their medical care; and it is also difficult to believe his words of commendation for the Iraq War Veterans if one thinks back at the Department of Homeland Security report on categorizing returning Vets as potential domestic terrorist.

But maybe I am not open minded enough.

I appreciated the mention of President Bush and I have to agree on Obama’s statement qualifying his predecessor as someone with patriotic convictions, something that must have been written by the speech writer as I am convinced that he knows nothing about.

But something positive about Bush was just immediately followed by an attack when, in a move that revived his campaigning posture, Obama introduced the issue of the economy in a speech that should have been, in my opinion, solely dedicated to the sacrifice the men and women of our Military have made.
Moreover, I do not believe that the economic decisions within our borders should be aimed at the expansion of foreign economic statuses. The United States has historically supported foreign economies via the prosperity that we have enjoyed here at home. Maybe someone should remind Obama that he is the President of the United States not of the World.

As a form speech, tonight Obama’s performance was somewhat boring or, more precisely, uninspired. It was more a mere attempt to blow smoke in the eyes of the Military and their families and a pat on his own back as he sustains that he fulfilled his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq.
He also mentioned Afghanistan and how his surge, the one he took months to decide upon, only to give McChrystal but a portion of what the general had asked, was making a difference in that conflict. But how many lives were lost in theater as he took the time to calcule his political liability? How many soldiers were killed and wounded as he was flying around the world with Oprah trying to bring the Olympic Games to Chicago?

Finally, I take very little comfort in the words of a Commander-in-Chief who speaks of the commitment that he and his administration is making toward our Military and the recognized role that it has in shaping up our foreign policy, when just about every member of the liberal leadership talks about cutting the Pentagon’s budget. Or when he embarks on a road to disarmament, mostly unilateral, just as Russia is slowly returning to its old militaristic strength; China is arming at a neck breaking speed; North Korea threatens once again the Southern neighbor and Iran is enriching nuclear fuel.
Granted that US foreign policy should be also based on diplomatic efforts, but as history has shown us over and over, diplomatic efforts made exclusively on the basis of appeasement are ultimately doomed to fail.
The enemies of America are not going to be dissuaded from their aims and designs by apology tours, bowing or flowery speeches.

Just my thoughts!