President Obama’s West Point Speech

In the immediate wake of President Obama’s speech at West Point the familiar faces are asking predictable questions that serve their purposes, be that re-election or TV ratings. In most cases, they are no more qualified than you, or I, to judge the decision – yet they seek to influence our reaction(s) with varying degrees of subtlety.

There are no diplomats representing Al Qaeda or the Taliban; there is nobody for the NATO diplomats to talk with, because their intent doesn’t include negotiation and these fanatic extremists are presently operating from countries demonstrably ill-equipped to respond in this case by police actions to what we’d usually categorize as domestic, internal affairs. Our diplomacy can only interface with the emerging government struggling in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan; the terrorists are committed to goals irreconcilable with the acceptable standards of civilized conduct.

We know, in our hearts, we are faced with that worst of all possible decisions, a genuine need to determine what is the less evil course to pursue. The cost in human terms will be wrenching regardless of which road we follow. We are caught up in a web of emotional reactions, a complex set of triggers that tend to make us rush to judgment in our hurry to put the unpleasantness behind us.

We demand more from our leaders, particularly our Commander-in-Chief. Leaders do not have the luxury of leaving the big decisions to somebody else, and we insist that they find not only rational, ethical, practical solutions to the biggest, thorniest problems, but that they justify those choices to us in a quick way – that they distill down all the advice and consideration, the accumulated wisdom of experienced advisors into a packet we can digest based on how long we’ll listen to a press conference or a speech (because after that point all we’re likely to get from media pundits is agenda-driven spin, leading questions, and echoes, not truth and insight.)

You may or may not agree with the President’s decision. Historians will analyze the NATO and U.S. actions dealing with the terrorists who are harboring near and along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan for decades after the fact. Meanwhile, you owe it to yourself to get beyond the emotional reactions which influence your response to gain as disciplined and objective a sense of both the facts and the process leaders such as Obama rely on to make these painful choices. It’s hard, and uncomfortable; even the most rational, educated, rigorous adults tend to fall back on the gut-level instinct to shy away from consideration of unpleasant alternatives and suffering.

You may have a distrust of military “solutions” or the generals who advocate the use of force. You may find the costs terrible, and terrifying, because they are. Yet the alternatives I see are fraught with a horror all their own, too, as organizations who rule via terror flourish and expand. Terrorism is not confined to the middle east, or Northern Ireland – denial serves only those who seek to undermine, and ultimately destroy, our way of life.

So make a reasoned decision. The U.S. President and his administration have consulted with countless leaders and strategists about what course to pursue. He took the time to boil it down to about a half-hour presentation (give or take a few minutes for applause from West Point cadets.) You took the time to find and read this article – How long have you actually thought about the choices, and what you’d do in Obama’s place?

Watch the President’s speech about the nature of our commitment, the scope and strategy of our military support of the NATO mission pursuing Al Qaeda and the Taliban in what is presently the epicenter of their operation.