Waking Up to the Obama Doctrine

It seems like only last week that Barack Obama was a neoconservative hero!

Oh yes — it was last week. Happily everyone’s sobering up now.

As I’ve pointed out here at FrumForum, some prominent neoconservatives — including Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Max Boot — fell head-over-heels for the man they met (or thought they met) at Oslo and West Point. But now some neocons see Obama  as he really is.

Commentary magazine’s Jennifer Rubin, for instance, is shocked and awed – and not in a good way! – about what the president said during his recent (Dec. 13) interview with CBS News’ 60 Minutes. The interview “should come as a rude awakening,” she writes.

The lefty netroot rhetoric, contemptuous of the idea that victory is America’s goal and that of the commander in chief, was back in full force. And typically for Obama, it came in an apparent fit of pique after Steve Kroft criticized his West Point speech as too detached and unemotional…

[H]is comments on this point [winning in Afghanistan] are simply jaw-dropping. We learn that he’s above all that ‘We win, they lose’ sort of stuff. We have troops in the field, and this president disparages the notion that we should commit ourselves to victory — triumph – and declare our motives ‘glorious.’

Are they not? Isn’t this about fighting ‘evil’? One can hardly imagine any other president turning up his nose at the idea that we should unashamedly declare ourselves devoted to triumph in battle or that our cause in defending ourselves (and Western civilization) is anything other than glorious…

And then there’s the deadline. It seems that despite the best efforts of Clinton and Gates, Obama really is all about limits. He explains that ‘it was a mistake for us to engage in open-ended commitment in Afghanistan…’ [H]e’s also signaling that the limit itself is necessary because he and his constituents have other things to do:

‘In the absence of a deadline, the message we are sending to the Afghans is: It’s business as usual. This is an open-ended commitment… [M]y job is to come up with a strategy that is time-constrained, that matches the resources that we’re expended to the nature of our national interest.’

Actually, his job is to win a critical war. But he’s not into triumphalism… I think the Obama spinners [-- i.e., Kristol, Kagan, Boot, et al.] — who promoted the appearance of a tougher, more realistic, and frankly more pro-American Obama will have their work cut out for them explaining away the 60 Minutes Obama.

The Weekly Standard also is beginning to doubt the president’s resolve and commitment — albeit reluctantly, hesitatingly, and oh-so-haltingly. We know this because their recent essays and entries all end in question marks, as if to say: “Is this really happening? Did Obama really say something different than what I thought I heard? I thought he loves me, but maybe not?”

Bill Kristol’s most recent essay, for instance, is entitled: A Nobel Speech? Did Obama lay the groundwork for an eventual strike against Iran?

The answer, of course, is no, as I’ve pointed out here at the FrumForum. But never mind. For Kristol the infatuated lover, this is still very much an open question. Thus he begins his essay by approvingly citing… Sarah Palin’s take on Obama’s Oslo speech! Said Palin:

I like what he said. I talked, too, in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times.

Again, as I’ve pointed out here at the FrumForum, Obama talked about the necessity of war only in the abstract and as a generic statement of principle. But as for the practical, real-world application of military force in the here and now, Obama offers nothing more than what Charles Krauthammer rightly calls “hedges, caveats, and one giant exit ramp.”

The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy…

I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior…

In a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace.

This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come…

In other words, America cannot act alone when its vital national security interests are at stake, and we must develop alternatives to violence. We must talk and engage in “painstaking diplomacy.”

But what happens when talk and “painstaking diplomacy” fail? And what “alternatives to violence” (or alternatives to the threat of force) are there that will change the behavior of thugs and tyrants like Iranian ruler Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Korean dictator Kim Jong-il?

Now Kristol’s Weekly Standard colleague, John McCormack, has a new blog entry which reports on Vice President Biden’s most recent bombshell about Afghanistan. The entry is entitled “Biden Goes Rogue on Afghanistan?”

“This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Vice President Biden said that U.S. troops would rapidly withdraw from Afghanistan.

‘You’re going to see that [troop numbers] chart coming down as rapidly over the next two years,’ Biden said after looking at a chart showing troop numbers surging from 33,000 at the beginning of 2009 to 98,000 in the summer of 2010. ‘This is not a COIN [counterinsurgency] strategy,’ Biden said. ‘We just want to make sure that the Taliban is diminished enough so that the Afghan government can contain it.’

Perhaps most troubling, Biden said: ‘the president has made something exquisitely clear to each of the generals: He said do not occupy any portion of that country that you are not confident within 18 months you’re going to be able to turn over to the Afghans. Do not occupy what you cannot turn over.’

Biden concluded his remarks with this bit of wit and wisdom:

“We’ve got to make it clear — and we have — to the Afghans: ‘You’re about to have control of your country. Lots of luck in your senior year. We are not going to be staying there. And, uh, we got to get that across.’

Biden and his MSNBC cohosts — Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and Mike Barnicle — all smiled and chuckled.

Unfortunately, this is no laughing matter for the good people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The idea that America will soon abandon them is not reassuring. After all, many Afghans, Pakistanis, and Indians believe in America and have cast their lot with us. And now our vice president is publicly and forcefully pledging to abandon them: by withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Biden’s remarks also are no laughing matter for our troops in the field. Our troops, after all, are tasked with earning the trust and confidence of the Afghan people and the Afghan security forces. The vice president’s remarks, however, make this task more difficult. Indeed, I can see it now.

U.S. MARINE CORPS CAPTAIN MICHAEL JOHN: “Mohammed, we are here for you. We will help you. We will not abandon you. I give you my word as a Marine. Now, please, tell us: where are the Taliban hiding?”

ELDERLY AFGHAN VILLAGER: “Captain John, I would like to help you; but I must worry about the safety of my wife and children. You Americans will not be here long. Even your vice president, Biden, says that you will soon leave. What is it that he said? ‘Senior year is over? Good luck?’

But I cannot depend on good luck; that’s not good enough! When you leave, the Taliban will kill us all! Please. Understand. I need to keep quiet and must not work or be seen with you. Good bye, Captain John.”

McCormack, to his credit, recognizes this problem. “Don’t Biden’s remarks diminish our ability to win?” he asks.

Of course they do. But given the president’s remarks at West Point and Oslo, there is a real likelihood that Biden is no rogue element within the Obama administration; he is instead, perhaps, the pied piper. Time to wake up to this reality.