Well, then-Senator Obama made headlines by stating that victory in Iraq was impossible and that the Surge was doomed to fail. Seeking to build on that model, he realizes that he has one chance to pin the War in Afghanistan on President Bush in case we "lose" there.
The current President has made a good move by sending more troops to the country, but has mysteriously failed to garner widespread international support for more troops-- considering how everyone now loves America again.
The President is afraid that violence will rise and the American public will see him as escalating the war. If he sets expectations low and blames everything on Bush now, he may receive a pass if things don't go as well.
His strategy might work, but how will that work for morale. Is it really so great for forces on the ground if their Commander in Chief says that there's a substantial chance that under his watch you will not "win" the war.
The President is attempting a "nuanced" view on the matter, but take a look at the subject:
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
I'd bet a clean $50 that he didn't know about the details of the surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. Must'a been Rahm Emanuel's doing. Maybe that's the problem to begin with. We have a President who doesn't know much about foreign policy, but thinks he does. What he does think is often in the "post-America" model.
Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!