By Christi Parsons
JACKSONVILLE, Fla.-- As pressure builds on the administration to pick up the pace of its Afghanistan war strategy review, President Obama countered critics with a trip to a Navy base today to declare he will not "rush the solemn decision" of sending the American military into harm's way.
On one of the bloodiest days in the war to date, Obama praised the 14 Americans who died in helicopter crashes in Afghanistan today and promised to present a "clear mission" and "defined goals" for those whom he may call on to continue the fight against al Qaeda and its allies.
"I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary," Obama told a crowd of about 3,500 assembled from each of the armed services, gathered in a hangar to see the president this afternoon. "And if it is necessary, we will back you up."
Around the country, Republicans are ratcheting up criticism of the president, whose ground-up review of the war strategy has taken up much of the fall without a defined end-point in sight. Some critics warn the president risks projecting weakness, while others raise the possibility that domestic politics may be coming into play.
Obama has said he is getting close to making decisions about strategy and possible troop increases, and suggested that he has strategic reasons for keeping them to himself until after a new Afghan government is chosen.
A run-off to test the results of thenation's recent fraudulent election is expected Nov. 7 - a point when the White House hopes that international security forces will have a credible, trustworthy partner with which to do business in the region.
But rather than answering his critics in Washington, Obama concluded a morning meeting with war advisors in Washington and headed for the Jacksonville Naval Air Station to deliver the message to people in uniform.
"While I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this--and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan:
"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way," Obama said. "Because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That's the promise I make to you."
(President Barack Obama, pictured above, at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station today. AP Photo by Phil Coale)
In tone and substance, the speech rang dramatically differently from the one that Bush delivered at the nearby Mayport Naval Air Station in February 2003, in the days running up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
That day, Bush promised that the U.S. would use "every ounce of our power" to defeat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and called on the United Nations to throw its weight behind the American fight. As it turned out, U.S. forces advanced without the international community in full support.
Obama's process of foreign policy has been a study in contrast, notably in the amount of time that he is taking to build that support from allies before moving forward.
Republican critics fault him for what some of them call "dithering."
"History proves that it is weakness, not strength, that tempts our enemies," Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said earlier today. "And he is projecting potential weakness, and enemies may see that and their respect may be reduced as a result of that, or worse."
Rep. Cynthia Lummis, a Wyoming Republican, said the president needs to send more troops, as military commanders have asked, and to announce his decision now.
"A successful counterinsurgency strategy requires a military force large enough to apply decisive force against our enemies while maintaining sufficient troops and police to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban," she said. "We must let our friends and enemies know that we intend to follow through in Afghanistan."
"Unfortunately, the lack of decisiveness about how to best proceed is emboldening our enemies and endangering our troops and our friends,'' Lummis said.
Meanwhile, Utah's Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch is raising the political question of whether Obama is intentionally putting off his announcement until after two important governors' races, in Virginia and New Jersey, on Nov. 3.
Obama's fellow Democrats are locked in tight contests with Republicans in those races, seen as early reviews of the president's performance 11 months into his term.
To be sure, Obama has politics in mind as he travels south.
Tonight the president travels to Miami, a plentiful mine for political contributions, on a fundraising expedition for Democrats running for Senate and congressional seats next year. The outcome of their midterm races also is a reflection on him.
But speaking in Jacksonville, Obama let his audience drive home his message about deliberation.
Ticking off a list of promises to take care of veterans and service members and their families, Obama called them "obligations that your country is honor-bound to uphold. Because you've have always taken care of America, and America must always take care of you, always."
"You know this," he said, as the crowd cheered him on. " It's the spirit you live by every day. It's the pride--and yes, the anxiety--when you wave goodbye to your loved ones on the tarmac. It's the joy--and relief--when they come home safe.''
The president's audience was made up of service members and their families from the Jacksonville base and others in the area, as well as civilians working on base and members of the community. Several said they were Obama supporters in the campaign, while several in uniform declined to talk to a reporter.
Thomas Bingol, a Navy lieutenant and chaplain, said he welcomed the president's remarks about his war review.
"I thought they were spot-on, especially about not sending people into harms' way unnecessarily," said Bingol. "That is time well-spent."
Velvet Whitaker, whose husband is retired from the Navy, said she wants to see the president send more troops to Afghanistan but to be deliberate about how he deploys them.
"It's a waste to make the fast decision if it's not the right one," Whitaker said. "It's not something to rush into."
Comments
Why can't we just blow them up and then ask questions later? Let's just tell people that the Taliban has hidden WMD's and we're gonna bring the Afghani's the freedom!
That's what the great Dubya and Darth Cheney did and that turned out great!....not!
Posted by: Fat, Drunk & Republican is no way to go through life | October 26, 2009 4:52 PM
Obama is going about this the right way.
The Bush administration ignored the soldiers in Afghanistan for years and then they left a report for President Obama on their way out of Dodge. How nice. And their report obviously wasn't very good. Gen McChrystal said as much when he asked for 40,000 more troops this past spring.
Gen McChrystal also said in his report that a thorough review needed to be done, something conveniently ignored by the "MORE TROOPS NOW!!!" Bush/Cheney/Republican warmonger crowd who are so quick to accuse President Obama of "dithering".
Did anyone on Faux News ever ask Bush & Cheney why they ignored Afghanistan for six straight years? Nope.
And Faux News wonders why intelligent people don't consider their sorry station real news? Sorry, but constantly running ads claiming you are "fair and balanced" doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Gary | October 26, 2009 4:59 PM
Afghanistan is and always has been, a lost cause.
No one can create a democracy at gunpoint. You can only create a dictatorship that way. This is because any government imposed from the outside will be considered as illegitimate to those forced to live under it.
The French and US couldn't make it work in Vietnam.
The Russians couldn't make it work in Afghanistan.
The Japanese couldn't make it work in China.
The Chinese haven't made it work in Tibet yet.
The British held India partially by force of arms.
Even the Genghis Kahn's government was considered "imposed" by his subjects.
But someone always tries. What's that old saying about "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a form of insanity?"
Posted by: Wilber R | October 26, 2009 5:12 PM
"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." Obama
.To:
""I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary...And *if* it is necessary, we will back you up."
Posted by: No, ifs, ands, or, buts about Afganistan. | October 26, 2009 7:38 PM
We'd probably already be finished with Afghanistan by now if Bush and Cheney hadn't decided that it would be a great idea to blow it off and invade Iraq for no reason.
Afghanistan is a lost cause, the people who attacked us on 9/11 have already left (thanks again Bu$hco). By staying there we are doing nothing but wasting more blood and treasure.
Posted by: Dissent is Patriotic | October 26, 2009 7:53 PM
I think its about time Mr. NObama grows some gonads. he's acting like "Mr. Milk Toast". I would like to remind him our good troops are being shot at, wounded and some are being maimed for life. I know this might be hard for Nobama to understand but here goes anyway, put yourself in a father or a mothers shoes, wouldn't you want your President to act with some sense of urgency. Or better yet this maybe a stretch but what would he want the President to do is he were in a foxhole.
Posted by: Paul | October 26, 2009 8:22 PM
I think its about time Mr. NObama grows some gonads. he's acting like "Mr. Milk Toast". I would like to remind him our good troops are being shot at, wounded and some are being maimed for life.
Posted by: Paul | October 26, 2009 8:22 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where have you been? That's been going on since 2001, Warmonger Paulie.
Why didn't you ask that question when Shrub Jr and The Dick Cheney decided to stop hunting for Bin Laden and invade Iraq in 2003?
Posted by: Posted by: No, ifs, ands, or, buts about Afganistan | October 26, 2009 8:59 PM
wouldn't you want your President to act with some sense of urgency...
Posted by: Paul | October 26, 2009 8:22 PM
Yes and I want my President to act with urgency. I also want him to act with true responsibility, integrity and with a real plan of action and strategy rather than the past administrations fumbling and lack of any plan at all! Shut up already! Rushing into escelating this war is not a matter of having balls or not! I'ts about how to do this right after 8 years of absolute failure! You're rushing always leads to failure when are you going to get that? And dont tell me we won in Iraq PLEASE! Have you been reading the news lately? I'm so sick of you wingnuts trying to rush into war all the time not thinking of the consequences of not having a strategy! THIS is what kills and mames more people in the long run!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | October 26, 2009 10:01 PM
Only one big difference between Obama leadership and Bushs leadership as commander-n-chief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw>?
Posted by: MAJMark | October 26, 2009 11:55 PM
OBAMA:
Dithering, golfing, basketball games, $100.00 a pound kobe beef, (flown in from Japan) parties, and serenades on Wednesday nights before deployment.
Our community-organizer-in chief working hard to make that decision.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 27, 2009 12:15 AM
Looks as if Obama is worrying more about his political future than the troops as his decision will be bad either way he decides on with the country so divide on his actions.
Posted by: inky | October 27, 2009 6:50 AM
Thanks God, none of those fellows are our President !! ".... worrying about a political future ", or so concerned about our "... community-organizer-in-chief " continually display their inability to support our President, President Obama, in any real way. The best they offer is the hope and prayer of President Obama's failure and that is a sad day for America, when good citizens cheer for our President's failure. I sincerely hope they can re-think their reactionary positions, they are hurting all of us, in America. I don't think that is their intentions, but it is the consequences of their ideological positions !! What happened to " America First " !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | October 27, 2009 10:08 AM
The Afghanistan War was a terrible idea from the start (I said at the time, protested -- and was exactly right). That the war was started and "administered" for 7 years by a incompetent little boy only made a bad idea worse in application.
It's time to drop the "Bush took his eye off the ball" meme because it implies that such a war was otherwise winnable. Truth is the only way to "win" would be to nuke the place into oblivion, which would even Murderer Bush would have considered inhumane (and that's saying alot).
Obama needs to have the guts to say he's had it wrong and get us out. Launching this war to fight terrorism was akin to trying to swat gnats with chain link fence. We've done enough damage. Like my bud Hippocrates used to say: "first, do no harm." Let's stop doing harm and then consider ways to do good.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 27, 2009 11:25 AM
Excuse me!, all you people out there calling everyone that doesn't agree with you warmongers. Obviously you have not been in any of the branches of the military. When your in a conflict like this, there is only 1 strategy and thats to "WIN", then bring them home.
Just a little side note; if enough of these radical muslims get over here they wouldn't think nothing of killing you cowards.
Posted by: Paul | October 27, 2009 1:02 PM
Paul:
Your barely-coherent post doesn't say anything. What is a "win" here? And what costs can be tolerated to achieve it? As I suggested, we certainly could nuke Afghanistan. That could eliminate every "radical muslim" over there (it would of course enrage/motivate every radical muslim located elsewhere, as well as every sane person on earth, but that's only one of those "reality" things that you can't bother to grasp). Would that be a "win"? How many of our troops should die in the process of achieving a "win"? Is 100,000 too many? Is 10,000 tolerable -- or 1,000 -- or 10? How many death warrants would you be willing to sign?
How much money should we spend? Are you willling to pay extra taxes to raise this money? Are there better ways to achieve our objectives?
It's really easy to talk in bumperstickers, Paul. What's hard is to consider all the relevant circumstances and choose the best available option. If Murderer Boy had done that 8 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today (albeit a mess that evidently gets your rocks off).
Posted by: a blinkin | October 27, 2009 1:29 PM
Draft. Republicans. Now! If you think Obama was born in Kenya. If you believe President Obama is causing companies to lay off employees. Sign up. Go to Afghanistan. Show America what you are made of.
Posted by: Show Democrats your bravery | October 27, 2009 2:21 PM
It's easier to make good on an Obama promise by writing your future in the rear-view mirror, then to move forward. How could you blame his die-hard scripters? The guy backing hope and change turned out to be a mortal. His promises carry a certain risk in application-- that Obama might just find himself in W's shoes, or, at least, on the receiving end of one of them over the head. Now, I'm no warmonger, but these fairies are forgetting one thing-- you don't have to nuke an entire country to rid of the world of terrorism, but leaving a third-world half-corrupt opium-driven country (or whatever you didn't do to lag it behind for eight years) is doing more harm than good. Terrorism breads in such an environment, and not before long you withdraw you will have to re-address the reemerging threat. It is in our best interest to leave Afghanistan better than we found it, or suffer the consequences later. We can't just think the war away. We can't just think that the Afganis, or the Muslim world, will look upon how we left Afghanistan, and think a whole lot about us. We can't think that just because Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize by Europeans, that moderate Muslims will help us in a war against radicalism. Bush didn't attack the States, extremists did. Extremists made the war on terror global when they sized up the most influential globally prominent asset for the whole world to see, aided by freverent and abundant use of mass communication media, attacked. Afghanistan can't remain a sink whole, and if anyone should be able to do something about it-- it should be us, who were attacked.
Posted by: 27 years of war | October 27, 2009 2:30 PM
there is only 1 strategy and thats to "WIN",...
Posted by: Paul | October 27, 2009 1:02 PM
Only problem with your solution Pauly is that you can't win the war on terrorism! Impossible. Will never happen. The truth of the matter is, this is not a war on terrorism but rather the means of building a country that one day may be free of these radicals and a true demacracy. 50 years from now at best. Same with Iraq. You think it was about terrorism?? Give me a break. OIl and Country Building. Thats what its really about. The Bush administration was big on Country Building. I uderstand their philosophy. Their hopes are that eventually, in time, years ahead, these countries will be modernized democracies and love us all. WH
hose gonna pay for all this 'Country Building'?? Dont we have enough to do here at home???
As for the terrorists around the world, well, as long as we kill the terrorist father, the son will most likely become a terrorist like his dad before him. As long as we kill the brother, the other will try to kill us like his brother before him. Its an endless cycle with these people. The terrorists hate us. We occupy their land and kill their men, woman and children. They will never stop their hate for us. Never! The only way to win is to get out. Monitor them, spy on them, protect our shores and hope for the best.
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | October 27, 2009 3:55 PM