comments following President Obama's Afghanistan speech:
The second insight involved what may sound like a technical issue, but it goes to how the Afghanistan war will end. I asked Obama whether he would back reconciliation with the Taliban. He responded: "We are supportive of the Afghan government's efforts to reintegrate those elements of the Taliban that . . . have abandoned violence and are willing to engage in the political process."
Obama sent more signals that night at West Point: He dropped the language from his March 27 speech on Afghanistan insisting the Taliban's core "must be defeated" and promised only to "reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government." He also pledged to "support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban" who are ready to make peace.
The Taliban gave an interesting response a few days later on its Web site, Alemarah.info. It said the group "has no agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is ready to give legal guarantee if the foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan." Now, what did that mean? Was it a hint the Taliban might break with al-Qaeda? I don't know, but I hope the White House is asking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to find out.
Of course, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are who we have talking to the Taliban for us.
The other interesting part was about the meeting Obama had with reporters prior to his speech
Here's the passage that suggested his broader vision: "Part of the goal of my presidency is to take the threat of terrorism seriously but expand our notions of security so that it includes improving our science and technology, making sure our schools work, getting serious about clean energy, fixing our health-care system, stabilizing our deficit and our debt."
This may sound like boilerplate, but it's actually a pretty good manifesto for governing.
Obama's problem is that making policy isn't like making speeches. Leadership isn't abstract and fuzzy anymore but real and reactive: The president must deal with the crises before him -- an economy near collapse when he took office and a grinding war in Afghanistan. Making responsible policy decisions isn't easy, and in the case of bailing out bankers or sending more troops to Afghanistan, it will leave nearly everyone unhappy. But Obama seems newly comfortable making enemies if he thinks he's doing the right thing.
"If I were basing my decisions on polls," he said, "then the banking system might have collapsed, and we probably wouldn't have GM or Chrysler, and it's not clear that the economy would be growing right now." Some presidents have an almost compulsive need to be popular (think Bill Clinton). This one is less needy, which is an advantage for him and the country.
He ends it with this:
Obama has a cool and detached style that makes people forget, sometimes, that he is an innovator and a change agent. He would be wise to show the country less of the mental teleprompter and more of the fire inside.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903311.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
