Reaction to Obama's Speech - Krauthammer, Hayes

Obama's Afghanistan speech got absolutely panned by Charles Krauthammer and Wisconsin native Stephen Hayes.

Video.


Transcript

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I thought it was a rather strange speech. It was defensive, and also there was a lot of hedging.

The president said at the end that our resolve is unwavering. He said in August this is a war of necessity. And then he gives us all the reasons why we have to start leaving in a year and a half. And among the reasons he gave is that it's a very expensive war, and we have a bad economy, and that's more, or that's at least of equal importance.

It's not exactly the kind of speech that you would have heard from Henry V or Churchill. And it's not exactly the kind of speech that you heard from George Bush when he announced his surge.

Essentially, this is a repetition of the surge that we had in Iraq in 2007. I look at the President's speech in 2007, at the Bush speech. There was no talk of a timeline. There was no talk of withdrawal. There was only talk about success. And the reason it's important is because we have a brave military, unquestionably. We have skilled commanders in Petraeus and McChrystal.

But the question is: Do we have the commitment of the president?

With Bush, for all of the mistakes he made in the early years of the occupation, there was a sense that he meant it, he pursued success, and he gave a sense of that to friend and enemy alone.

In this speech, a long speech in which none of the strategy that we just heard from our general explaining -- none of it was actually explained. You've got a sense of a man who wants to put a toe in the water, who wants to give it a shot, but he's ready to leave. And that's not exactly a clarion call. To me, it's an uncertain trumpet at a time when there's uncertainty already around, and I think it only compounds the uncertainty.

STEPHEN HAYES: The most important role of a president is commander in chief. This felt very small to me. The president said in one sentence, he called this and said that the common security of the world is at stake. And literally in the very next sentence, he said we're going to get out in July of 2011. If it is the case that the common security of the world is at stake, you don't say that we need to figure out the problem in 18 months or we're outta here.

It sends bad mixed messages, and I think it was one of the worst speeches I could imagine in support of the right policy decision.

Here's more reaction to Obama's speech, from the BBC.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL
President Obama's decision to substantially increase the numbers of US forces in the Nato-led operation is proof of his resolve; the overall approach he laid out is a broader political strategy for success. The United States' contribution to the Nato-led mission has always been substantial; it is now even more important.

But this is not a US mission alone: America's allies in Nato have shared the risks, costs and burdens of this mission from the beginning. As the US increases its commitment, I am confident that the other allies, as well as our partners in the mission, will also make a substantial increase in their contribution.


GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, US AND NATO COMMANDER IN AFGHANISTAN
The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the president has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task.

The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the president's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.


SAID TAYEB JAWAD, AFGHAN AMBASSADOR TO THE US
This is along the line of what the Afghan people are demanding.

It's nothing new. Afghanistan has never received a blank cheque so far. If we look at President Karzai's inaugural speech, he indicated that corruption will not be tolerated.

It is a demand of the Afghan people too, for the Afghan government to improve its capacity to deliver services and fight corruption.


GORDON BROWN, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER
I call on all our allies to unite behind President Obama's strategy. Britain will continue to play its full part in persuading other countries to offer troops to the Afghanistan campaign.


NICOLAS SARKOZY, FRENCH PRESIDENT
It was a courageous, determined and lucid speech which gives new momentum to the international engagement and opens new prospects.

France expects clear commitments from the Afghan authorities in response to the exceptional commitment of the international community: in the areas of governance, social and economic development and the battle against drug trafficking.


JOHN FAULKNER, AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE MINISTER
I'm very hopeful that the increase in troops will make a very significant difference on the ground in Afghanistan. This new strategy provides a solid framework for refocusing the coalition's efforts and of course for achieving success in Afghanistan.


MICHAEL STEELE, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Although this decision took far too long and it should not have, I am glad the president will finally provide General McChrystal with the troops he needs. However, tonight's speech must be the beginning, not the end, of the case President Obama makes to the American people as to why this is, as he said during the campaign, "a war we have to win".


JOHN KERRY, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
I believe that the president defined a narrower mission tonight, not an open-ended nation-building exercise. A key component of that mission is providing that the troops will only clear and hold in places where there is capacity to build and transfer beneath them and that there will be significant partnering with Afghans in all of these efforts. That includes finding reliable Afghan partners in governance. If these criteria are met, then there is a chance for success.


KARL EIKENBERRY, US AMBASSADOR TO AFGHANISTAN
I strongly support the decisions President Obama is announcing today to provide clarity and focus to the US mission in Afghanistan. My team and I will energetically implement this strategy in closest possible partnership with the Afghan people, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Nato's International Security Assistance Force, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and other international partners.


ARLEN SPECTER, DEMOCRATIC SENATOR
I disagree with the president's two key assumptions: that we can transfer responsibility to Afghanistan after 18 months and that our Nato allies will make a significant contribution. It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months so there is really no exit strategy. This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit.


JOHN MCCAIN, REPUBLICAN SENATOR AND FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
A withdrawal date only emboldens al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight.