01 December 2009

Surging.

Gut reaction? I think it is what we need to do, though I hate what it means for our military family.

I thought President Obama's speech was very good and I think that the goals, time lines, narrow focus and specifics will go a long way to remedy and address the issues that arose in the Iraq war (goals that were too broad, no urgency due to no timeline, etc). I am no analyst, I am no General, but I feel like this decision was reached without undue haste, with deep regard to the cost of our troops and country, and with the wisdom of past failures. This plan will be changed, this plan will have pitfalls... but it will also have successes, it will have results and it will provide a timeline to gauge our progress and to assess changes that need to be made.

If we must be at war, I would rather we be thoughtful and concerned about the outcomes. I would rather we be specific and decisive, not open-ended and vague. I would rather follow a CinC with a clear vision and a complete understanding of all factors at play. In short, I support this surge. Even though we as a military community will bear the burden.

After listening to all of President Obama's speech, I was beyond pleased to find both Swiss's concerns and mine addressed (which at times are quite divergent), and walk away feeling like, finally, we have a POTUS who isn't short-sighted, who sees the big picture and who is willing to engage in thoughtful, concerted, honest dialogue about the issues facing our country, our military, and our world. It's about damned time.

Also, for the record: I cannot tolerate the media, pundits, analysts, politicians (on both sides) and opportunists who took this serious matter, this issue of national and world concern, this commitment of 30,000 of our bravest men and women, and turn it into a chance to up their political stock, extend their 15 minutes of fame, or goad the other side for future electoral gains. Also, when it is obvious within the first 20 seconds of you opening your mouth that you only heard what you wanted to hear, you loose all credibility. Just so you know.

The end.

5 comments:

Julie said...

I feel like you do. I hate the thought of more deployments. But it will be nice if this works and we can finish things over there.

I am just glad that if my husband does have to go there (which he probably will) the decision was not made just to make a decision. It was given a lot of thought and that makes me feel better about the whole thing.

liberal army wife said...

thinking and considering the options... wow, whoda thunk it? huh? after all...we are supposed to, according to those "wise" (barf, gag) commentators who decided that we needed to immediately respond to McChrystal's leaked (ahem) report and throw 40,000 troops in there. Just fly them in and throw them on the tarmac and say, HERE YA GO!!!

I feel a blog post coming on.

LAW

Kayla said...

I COMPLETELY agree. With everything you said. While the BF was complaining about how long the decision took, I for one am OVERJOYED to finally have a President who actually cares about the lives he's putting in harms way. Who actually thinks about an exit strategy before (wow, what a concept) he commits more lives. Fewer lives will be lost with a leader who carefully weighs decisions. It makes me feel better about the BF being in his hands.

Southern Belle said...

Great post!

Post Tenebras Lux said...

Tucker, I'm glad you felt like your (plural) concerns were addressed.

Kayla, it seems unfair to me to assume former president Bush didn't care. His time spent with the families of servicemembers killed under his command, with the families of those killed at Ft. Hood, etc., seem like enough evidence to the contrary that we can't make a call on what his motivation was.