The Only Thing That Matters in War is Looking Tough
The entire piece is framed around whether or not Obama is really taking on his role of Commander in Chief, which needless to say (alright, I’ll say it anyway) is pretty stupid stuff. It only goes downhill from there.
Here are Feaver’s bullet points (bullet points!), which list signs that Obama really is becoming an honest-to-God Commander in Chief (As opposed to whatever he’s been so far in office? WTF?):
- His follow-through on messaging is sustained and vigorous (and matched by a similar on-message effort by the senior White House staff and cabinet-level officials).
- He reaches out to Republicans, thanking them for their commitment to the war effort and promising to work with them. (If he really wants to show self-confidence, he might even say some kind words about President Bush and his courage as a war-time leader, but it is perhaps unreasonable to expect such a transcendently classy gesture at this stage.)
- He and his team describe the Afghan effort as a war to be won.
- He and his team sketch a vision of “success” in terms of achievable objectives. Any discussion of an “exit strategy” is similarly framed in terms of mission success.
- He and his team describe the American (and allied) troops who are fighting as heroes who are fighting to defend our freedoms against malevolent enemies that really do seek to do us harm.
- He thanks our troops as well as our allies, including our Afghan allies, for the sacrifices they are making and he promises them that on his watch he will do everything necessary to see that those sacrifices will be redeemed by seeing the war through to a successful conclusion.
- He levels with the American people about the costly road ahead, but explains why alternatives would be even costlier
Notice how many of these are built around emotion and rhetoric.
Obama should thank the troops for their sacrifices–and he’s done this on many occasions. Unfortunately, I think Feaver’s misplaced his right-wing talking points. I thought the line was to criticize Obama for being photoed while saluting dead soldiers. Obama should also thank Republicans? What? Why? He should describe our soldiers as “heroes”—um, when does he not do this?
Another neocon classic–defining the fight as a “war to be won.” Right, because that’s undoubtedly the only thing standing between us and victory. Not, I don’t know, 30 years of war in Afghanistan, its status as just about the poorest and most violent country on the planet, its black markets in weapons and drugs, a terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan, its corrupt government, drug lords, war lords, and one of the most treacherous terrains imaginable for fighting an insurgency.
Forget all that, we just need some straightforward “messaging.”
In short, there are basically two intelligent points in there.
#4 Sketch a vision in terms of achievable objectives and #8 Be honest about the cost and make a case why the cost is worth it. These are just fairly rational, obvious points in my book. If you are sending troops into a battle zone, you need to say you have a plan and why the risk is worth it. Basically, everything else can be deleted or is so obviously going to happen (Is Obama really going to avoid calling our troops heroes?!) as to be unnecessary.
Feaver then follows up with a list of indicators that Obama is not really serious about being Commander in Chief. Don’t bother asking how Feaver can get inside Obama’s head and divine his inner feelings. As you can imagine, these points are basically the opposite of list 1: e.g. he calls the soldiers victims instead of heroes.
December 1, 2009 32 Comments
