Blogs For Victory

I didn’t watch it – I tend not to watch actual politicians on stage because I let my political-junkie mind get in the driver’s seat. I’m always looking at it like someone who actually cares about a position one of them took 6 years ago on some obscure issue – but that is not how these things should be viewed. They should be viewed by people of intelligence, character, good basic knowledge but no dog in the hunt: in other words, the view of Joe or Jane Average American. My usual victim to have watch these things is thus the Mrs. It was the Mrs, after all, who tipped me to Obama early on – playing a large role in my prediction in September of 2007 that Obama would be the Democrat nominee. But she was busy, so no one in the house to watch this particular debate. I have, however, read after-action reports from people I respect and, on balance, it doesn’t look like it was a stellar performance by anyone.

Mark Steyn takes note of the debate, and hits upon a very important point over at NRO’s The Corner:

…I also agree that the answers on Afghanistan about deferring to the commanders in the field were pathetic – for a couple of reasons:

First, as I said in NR a couple of issues back, you can’t win a war unless you have war aims – and war aims are determined by a nation’s civilian leadership. So, if Romney & Co mean what they say, it helps explain why America has nothing to show either for a decade in the Hindu Kush or for three months over Tripoli.

Alternatively, if they don’t mean it, then they’re just pandering in a bumper-stickerish “I So Totally Support Our Troops I’ll Take My Orders From Them” kind of way. And this political season ought to be one not for panderers but for tellers of hard truths.

That is extraordinarily true and the answers given by the gathered GOPers were, from what I can see, uniformly weak – except for Ron Paul’s “get ’em out” point of view, on the grounds that it was at least a decision. I believe Paul is wrong, but I’d rather have a President who will flat out surrender than one who is so afraid to make a decision that we neither surrender nor fight to victory. Victory is always preferred, but if you won’t fight to win then you’d better pack it in before a lot of lives are lost. To defer to the military on whether or not to begin or terminate any military operation is to fail at the core aspect of Presidential leadership. At the end of the day, this is the function of the President – to decide what should be done.

President Obama routinely fails this test. We don’t move at all, or we move too late, or move with too little, or move with no clear goal in sight. This is making a hash out of things with Russia, Libya, China, Syria and Egypt…and Obama’s fat is only being pulled out of the fire in Afghanistan (and that only tenuously) because of the magnificent courage of US and allied soldiers. Like all too many leaders in history, Obama just doesn’t want to lose – but he’s afraid to make the decisions which would ensure victory. Afraid? Aren’t you being a little unfair there, Noonan – what do you mean by “afraid”? I mean precisely that – but don’t get me wrong, most political and military leaders prove, in the crisis, to be afraid. Those who aren’t turn out to be history’s great leaders and captains.

We cannot know if any of the potential GOP candidates have this rare thing – the courage to make decisions when the risks are high. It could be that all of them would fail as badly as Obama has. But one or more of them might also prove to have the stuff it takes. Only time and circumstance will ever tell that – but as it relates to the 2012 election and the necessity of getting Obama out of office, it is vital that the GOP candidate be someone who can at least articulate what is wrong with Obama’s leadership. And in this context it means setting a series of policy goals and then showing a willingness to do what proves necessary to achieve the goal. Do you want to pull out of Afghanistan? Then you’d better give us the why, give us the how you plan to do it and, additionally, tell us what you’ll do in the aftermath of a precipitate US withdrawal. Do you want us to stay in Afghanistan? Then you’d better tell us why we should stay, and what you’ll do to obtain the result you desire.

We need to point out Obama’s failures – but we can’t do so simply by echoing polling data which is showing things like Afghanistan and Libya to be unpopular. Doing that is just pandering for votes – but to win decisively over Obama we have to explain where he’s gone wrong, what we want different and how we’ll do it. These GOP candidates have it within them to offer a reformed America – the real hope and change we wanted in 2008, but were swindled out of by Obama’s slick campaign. But we can’t get there from here by saying, “bad Obama” over and over again…we have to offer someone for President who demonstrates superior Presidential ability…and that means having the courage to state what you want and what you’ll do to get it.

Hopefully there will be a major back-bone implant in to the GOP field by the time the next debate is staged – they need to do it, we need them to do. There is still plenty of time – it is beyond waaaay early right now. But it can’t be put off, forever…one of these fine people will have to start acting like a President…or someone else out there will have to get in and show how its done.