Annals
of Retreat
townhall.com
[/] by Paul Greenberg [/] http://j.mp/0retreatO
or
http://townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/2015/10/22/annals-of-retreat-n2069001/page/full
"For
if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to
the battle?"
--
1 Corinthians, 14:8
As
it turns out, our president and commander in chief can face reality
-- if he absolutely has to, and for the shortest time he can stand.
Like a patient in the dentist's chair who just wants out.
So
even while announcing that he was going to reverse course in
Afghanistan (again) and keep American troops there after all, The
Hon. Barack Obama let the world (and the enemy) know that our forces
would stay in that country only until 2017. That way, the Taliban can
time their next offensive to coincide with the next American
withdrawal. It's getting to be a familiar script after all these
repetitions.
The
president added that the United States would be keeping less than
10,000 American troops there -- 9,800 to be exact -- instead of the
at least 20,000 our generals say it would take to provide a credible
deterrent. Long story short: Once again this president is adopting a
"strategy" of too little, too late. And publicizing it.
You
would think someone as bright as Barack Obama would have learned
better by now. Since the last time he announced that this country was
pulling out its troops from Afghanistan, that country's own fledgling
forces promptly collapsed.
Much
the same thing happened in Iraq when the president withdrew all our
troops to much fanfare, and succeeded only in giving a whole new
terrorist army (the Islamic State) a vacuum to fill. Yet he's proving
a remarkably slow learner no matter how many times the lesson is
repeated.
Can
you imagine Harry S. Truman or Dwight D. Eisenhower declaring that
American forces -- whether in Europe or Asia -- would man the
frontiers of freedom for only a limited time? Harry Truman learned
his lesson when his secretary of state, Dean Acheson, declared South
Korea beyond America's "defensive perimeter" -- and North
Korea proceeded to invade it. And the Korean War was on. Up to 30,000
American troops have stood guard there ever since the armistice,
while others provided a credible deterrent against Soviet aggression
in Europe during the Cold War.
It
is only now that a resurgent Russia under its new tsar has begun to
seize one country after another or parts thereof -- Crimea, Ukraine
-- and now has established a beachhead in Syria, leapfrogging NATO
defenses and resurrecting the old Russian empire as its European
neighbors shudder, awaiting Moscow's next advance.
As
usual, weakness has invited aggression. His admirers describe this
American president as leading from behind, though it would be more
accurate to say he's not leading at all but sounding retreat all
along the line as he abandons one old ally after another.
It
was Margaret Thatcher who once told a different American president --
George H.W. Bush -- that "now is no time to go wobbly." On
another occasion, the redoubtable Iron Lady observed that the trouble
with socialism is that its supporters eventually run out of other
people's money. The trouble with appeasement is that those who
practice it tend to run out of other people's countries to sacrifice.
And when they do, America must finally take a stand and fight,
whether in Afghanistan today or in Korea and Vietnam decades ago.
Those
tragic and costly wars might not have been necessary if we had
maintained our vigilance. Not just in Asia but in Europe -- and not
all that long ago. Remember when bombs were dropping on Belgrade
during the supposedly peaceful Clinton Years? Now they're falling
again, delivered by drones. And we're falling asleep again.
These
are the years that the locusts have eaten, as Winston Churchill said
of the 1930s, when another aggressor was on the march. But our
president, in his ahistorical way, seems to have learned nothing from
the past.
To
quote Jonathan Tepperman, managing editor of Foreign Affairs
magazine, there's no way to guarantee success in foreign policy, but
there's one sure way to guarantee failure -- "for the United
States to waffle." And our president seems to do little else but
waffle when it comes to foreign affairs. His is less a foreign policy
than an improvisation. Call it an ad-hoc series of changeable
positions with only one factor in common: drift.
Not
since a president named Jimmy Carter has this country had a more
irresolute foreign policy. Mr. Carter began his less than successful
tenure in the White House by denouncing Americans' "inordinate
fear of communism," and didn't wake up till the Soviets invaded
Afghanistan some three years later. Only then did he see what the
Soviets' "ultimate goals" were. As if Communist aggression
had been some kind of well-kept secret till then.
Let
it be said that Jimmy Carter did finally take note of Moscow's
mischief-making all over the globe. Barack Obama still sleeps on.
Even this late in his presidency he seems curiously incurious about
Russian ambitions in Europe, the Middle East and points beyond. Or
the role that regimes like Iran's play in fulfilling them. Nor does
he seem aware of the high cost of vacillation when it comes to
dealing with friend or foe, ally or enemy. Instead he continues to
add only to the Annals of Retreat.
I2C
151022aa 1Co14v8 O retreats | I2C | 151022 1553 et