- The Washington Times - Monday, December 7, 2009

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

If you happen to live in Kabul or Jalalabad, Ghurian or Kandahar, then a U.S. presidential speech about Afghanistan is, indeed, about Afghanistan.

If you live anywhere else on the planet, a U.S. presidential speech about Afghanistan is really about America - about American will, American purpose, American energy. How quickly the bright new dawn fades to the gray morning after. In Europe, the long awaited unveiling of this most thoughtful of presidents’ deliberations got mixed reviews - some bad, some brutal. Der Spiegel called it “half-hearted,” the Guardian called it “desperate.” And those are his friends.

You could watch the great orator’s listless, tentative performance with the sound down and get the basic message: I don’t need this in my life right now. If you read the text, it made even less sense. There’s something for everyone: A surge… and a withdrawal. He has agreed to surge for a bit, but only in preparation for a de-surge in 18 months’ time. I said on the radio that the speech reminded me of the English nursery rhyme:

“The Grand Old Duke of York

He had 10,000 men

He marched them up to the top of the hill

And he marched them down again.”

The Grand Young Duke of Hope has 30,000 men. He’ll march them up the Khyber Pass but he’ll march them down again in July 2011. If you’re some village headman who has been making nice to the Americans, the Taliban have a whole new pitch for you: In a year-and-a-half, the Yanks are going. But we’ll still be here.

“Our goal in war,” wrote Basil Liddell Hart, the great strategist of armored warfare, “can only be attained by the subjugation of the opposing will.” In other words, the object of war is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks but the enemy’s will. That goes treble if, like the Taliban and al Qaeda, he hasn’t got any tanks in the first place. So what do you think President Obama’s speech did for the enemy’s will? He basically told ‘em: We can only stick another 19 months, so all you gotta do is hang in there for 20. And in an astonishingly vulgar line even by the standards of this White House’s crass speechwriters he justified his announcement of an exit date by saying it was “because the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.” Or, as Frank Sinatra once observed, “It’s Very Nice To Go Trav’ling / But it’s so much nicer … to come home”:

“It’s very nice to just wander the camel route to Iraq

But it’s so much nicer, yes it’s oh so nice to wander back.”

As I said, Mr. Obama’s speech is only about Afghanistan if you’re in Afghanistan. If you’re in Moscow or Tehran, Pyongyang or Caracas, it’s about America. And what it told them is that, if you’re a local strongman with regional ambitions, or a rogue state going nuclear, or a mischief-making kleptocracy dusting off old czarist dreams, this president is not going to be pressing your reset button. Strange how a purportedly compelling speaker is unable to fake even perfunctory determination and resilience. Strange, too, how all the sophisticated nuances of post-Bush foreign policy “realism” seem so unreal when you’re up there trying to sell them as a coherent strategy.

Go back half-a-decade to when the former administration was threatening to shove democracy down the throats of every two-bit basket case, whether they wanted it or not. Democratizing the planet is, in a Council of Foreign Relations sense, “unrealistic,” but talking it up is a very realistic way of messing with the dictators’ heads. A pipsqueak like Syrian President Bashar Assad sleeps far more soundly today than he did back when he thought George W. Bush meant it, and so did the demonstrators threatening his local enforcers in Lebanon.

As for Mr. Assad’s friends in Tehran, you wonder if they’re not now flouting “world opinion” merely to see how ever more watery and qualified the threats from Washington get. The tireless Anne Bayefsky reported this week that the administration’s latest response to Iran’s nuclear provocations is to “start shifting our focus to the track of pressure.”

It’s a good thing the diplomatic cable is a mostly metaphorical concept these days because, priced per word, Washington’s are getting expensive. Starting to shift our focus to the track of pressure isn’t the same as “pressure.” Nor is it even a first step on “the track of pressure.” Nor is even a commitment to “focus” on “the track of pressure.” But it does represent a clear start to shifting the administration’s focus from whatever it’s focusing on right now to focusing on the possibility of shifting its focus to the track of pressure with the possible goal, once it is focused on shifting to the track of pressure, of eventually applying some. Not now. Not next month. But maybe at some point sometime, once we’ve figured out what meaningless gestures the Russians and Chinese would agree not to veto.

Like Europe, the Obama administration’s “realists” have decided that, if the alternative is summoning up the will to prevent a nuclear Iran, it’s easier to live with it. The realpolitik crowd’s biggest turn-on among their many peculiar fetishes is “stability,” yet they’re stringing along with what will be the single biggest destabilizing factor in geopolitics in a generation.

Iran’s president may be a millennial crackpot but he is thinking more realistically than the “realists.” If you can bulldoze your way into the nuclear club without paying a price, why not go for it? Pakistan had to do it quietly, in the shadows. Iran’s done it brazenly, daring the world to stop her. We didn’t - notwithstanding that the Islamic Republic has a 30-year track record of saying what it means and then doing it. If you were ever going to hold the nuclear line, this is the place to do it. The fact we didn’t is a huge victory for the mullahs long before the first nukes are ready to fly.

One of the most interesting developments in recent months have been the emerging alliances of convenience between Iran and its clients, on the one hand, and the likes of Russia, North Korea and Venezuela on the other. Some of this is simple mischief-making, but, in the vacuum of the “hopey-change,” a lot of it shows a shrewd strategic calculation. A nuclear Tehran, for example, serves Moscow’s interest in promoting itself as a guarantor of East European “security.” It’s one of the oldest of protection rackets: You need me to protect you from my psycho friend. For their part, the Sunni Arab dictatorships soon will face the choice of accepting de facto Persian regional hegemony or embarking on their own nuclearization. As for the Israelis, they’ll either be living under the ever-present threat of annihilation or they’ll be dead.

Whatever your view of this scenario, “stability” doesn’t seem to cover it. In his speech, the so-called “leader of the Free World” all but physically recoiled from the job description. Sorry about that. Not his bag. In the more toxic presidential palaces, you would have to be awfully virtuous not to take advantage of such a man. And soon.

Mark Steyn is the author of the New York Times best-seller “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006).


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide