Sanford D. Horn | Obama announces surrender date
Moments ago, while speaking at Camp Lejeune, N.C., Barack Obama announced that on “Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” He further said that by that date in 2011 all troops will be gone from this troubled nation.
Such a pronouncement only gives encouragement to those who seek to continue to destabilize an already shaky nation and region of the world. All they need do is wait out the departure of American servicemen and women who have served so admirably prior to renewing their acts of terror and carnage. While former President Bush’s “mission accomplished” was premature, so too is Obama’s announcement to let our strategy be known to our enemies.
Many United States military troops who have sacrificed so much to diminish the threat of insurgence, know first hand that the job is not yet complete. Yes, such an announcement could only have been made possible thanks to the success of Central Command Chief General David Petraeus, his strategy, and the surge itself. But, to announce a date certain of withdrawal is akin to surrender and could ultimately jeopardize the safety of the American men and women on the job in Iraq.
To end American military involvement in Iraq is one thing, but to announce the date raises a white flag and is analogous to telling thieves when one’s house will be empty as its occupants take a vacation. Prolonging American involvement in Iraq serves little benefit when its own people should have stepped up some time ago; however, it’s the so-called strategy that is debatable.
- Column by Sanford D. Horn
Related posts:
- Sanford D. Horn | Obama, La Hood-winked, Caterpillar and Canoodling The oft-used phrase politics makes strange bedfellows could not be more apt when examining the relationship between two Illinois politicos Barack Obama and Transportation Secretary...
- Sanford D. Horn | Rush to bad judgment Congress and Barack Obama have mastered hurry up and wait to an art form; but it’s an art form that should rankle the American people...
- Sanford D. Horn | RINO virus striking the Senate With the potential, even likely, defections of senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe along with Arlen Specter, Barack Obama’s scare tactics may succeed in garnering...
- Sanford D. Horn: Nation burns while Congress fiddles Op-Ed by Sanford D. Horn A la Nero, fiddling while Rome burned, so, too, the nation burns as Congress fiddles while not in session. The...
- Sanford D. Horn | Master of his domain, but little else In his first primetime press conference Barack Obama was certainly master of his domain – holding court in a campaign-like speech interrupted by the occasional...
Obama announces end to occupation – Going on six years past the end of military hostilities in Iraq, President Barack Obama ended the occupation of the Middle Eastern country that his predecessor transformed into a rallying point for international terrorism.
This move makes sense on so many different levels. We can focus energies toward the people who actually attacked our nation on Sept. 11, 2001, who now have us on the defensive in Afghanistan largely because we have had to divert our resources to the stabilization of Iraq.
Two, this move focuses the energies of Iraqi leaders on finally taking full responsibility for their country’s future. As long as we’re there to defend them from themselves, there was really going to be no impetus for progress on that end.
The only quibble I have with this move from the Obama administration is that Aug. 31, 2011, can’t come soon enough to suit what I think are America’s best interests here. This occupation has bankrupted us, fiscally and morally, and the sooner it comes to an end, the better off we are.
I agree with your response to Mr. Horn and his ‘surrender date concerns. I don’t think ‘winning’ is a possible ending to an insurgency amongst a homogenized population. Wars result from political gamesmanship.. As with most ‘games’, each side is identified as an unified force through a unique uniform. Thus, each side knows, more or less precisely, whom to kill. Not so when the enemy fires and disappears in to the panicked crowd of bystanders. What an exit date does do is function as a lever by which to force fence-sitting politicians to address their authority to enforce order in the domain. It’s either that or expanding an army’s right to kill indiscriminantly until the “enemy” fails to resurface. And that’s something the United States military will never do…and rightly so!
Interesting concept. In a perfect world it might work, but this isn’t a perfect world or we wouldn’t be over there in the first place and that goes for the whole Middle East. I don’t think that you fully realize the total consequences of this action. Sure it is going to stop the hemorrhaging of our money into Iraq and it might make them try to stand up and do what is right, I doubt it! First look at what is all around it, nothing but turmoil, dictators and terrorists just waiting to wreak havoc once we are gone. Whether you like it or not we have just given all the bad guys a date to wait for to begin what they want to do. The Iraqi people are lazy and have become used to our babysitting them. Are we just going to keep running back and forth between Afghanistan and Iraq jumping over the problem in between? As a former police officer in Detroit I dealt with one of the largest contingencies of Arabs in the US and can tell you from first hand experience that they have been fighting among themselves for thousands of years and we are not going to stop them. So what is the answer? We must contain them just like a vicious animals if we want the entire world to live in peace. We must rid them from our country and allow them to continue fighting each other. We must also see to it that all the nukes are removed from them and rockets to propel them. May sound hard and crewel but we had better face it, if we don’t the consequences will be much worse that what we had experienced up until now.