What Was the Point at West Point?

Barack Obama's biggest liabilities as both a politician and so-called "leader" are his tendency to overstate the magnitude of the nation's problems and the effects of his policies upon those problems, to overreach on the legislative solutions to those overstated problems, as well as the time required for doing so and to repeatedly begin acting on those problems before the proper solution has been identified, effectively placing the cart before the horse.

---

We've seen this time and time again:

• He overreached on the economy, the actual effects that a Keynesian multiplier would have on his stinkulus and the number of jobs he would create. He then claimed thousands of jobs that never materialized in districts that didn't exist.
• He overreached with the closing date for Guantanamo Bay, announcing a firm date for closure, before even having a plan.
• He overreached when claiming an end to the practice of extrajudicial rendition, which continues.
• He overreached with his condemnation of one Sgt. Crowley, inserted himself and the race card into a local law enforcement issue and then shamelessly backtracked, never admitting the gaffe.
• He overreached with his health scare, which is the biggest, costliest lie in American history; next to the one still pushed by Al Gore and the UN IPCC regarding Earth's climate.
• He even overreached with the number of doses of H1N1 vaccine the government could deliver, and on what deadline.

There are other examples, but these suffice to show a pattern of impulsive behavior. And, nowhere are these impulsive tendencies more unwelcome, than on the blood-soaked battlefields of Afghanistan. The debate over Afghanistan, which proceeded at a snail's pace, concluded last week with a campaign-style stump speech that left red-eyed West Point Cadets nodding off, incredulous Americans scratching their heads and myself suffering whiplash trying to follow the contradictions laid out by the Deliberator-In-Chief. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Obama articulated a highly distorted view of history with his statement that Americans were attacked on 9/11 "without regard to their faith or race or station"(absurd, because bin Laden himself declared jihad against us long before 9/11 and cited precisely those factors), his speech laid out a plan to put more boots on the ground, had a firm date to begin withdrawal, set benchmarks, time lines and even hinted at punitive measures for not meeting them. There was something in the speech for everyone. But, what effect will this over-done, yet half-baked, politically-motivated strategy have on those actually doing the bleeding? Obama spoke of bringing the war to a "successful conclusion", with an additional 30,000 troops to begin "seizing the initiative". But, he also spoke in many contradictions. He said the aim of our soldiers was to break the back of al Qaeda, yet also to "accelerate handing over responsibility" to Afghans. Barack Obama set a deadline of July 2011 to begin, as he says "transitioning out", which is code for withdrawal, yet repeatedly said he was acting "in our vital, national interests" because he truly believed that the safety and security of America is at stake. If victory in Afghanistan is truly as vital as Obama says, then an arbitrary deadline, which assumes what posture you'll be in at that point in time, is a dangerous proposition, in many respects, as is even considering withdrawal, if your objectives aren't complete. This was a campaign speech, not a strategy for battlefield success. In it, Obama was not outlining a vision for liberating Afghanistan and us from the threat of al Qaeda, but telling people what each and every one of them wanted to hear, projecting weakness, indecision and lack of commitment. He outlined a politically safe, middle-of-the-road strategy that puts an extraordinary amount of pressure on already, over-extended US combat forces. By the time we have enough boots on the ground to actually make a difference, they'll have about a year until Obama's deadline, which was actually walked back by several administration officials as not a "deadline", but the beginning of a "transition". It seems to me, through the stark contradictions in his West Point address, and the mixed messages that followed, that Barack Obama either lacks the true commitment required for decisive victory or he's politicking for 2012 with the lives of US combat forces by giving them a deliberately ambiguous mission and not being completely forthcoming about when they will withdraw; whether in July of 2011 or when al Qaeda has been defeated. Unfortunately for America, specifically our men and women in uniform tasked with carrying out his orders, based on his past lack of leadership and conflicting statements on this issue, I do believe it's both.