Sophisticated Nonsense
I'll give Rush the credit for the phrase, although I heard it in the car today so I don't have a link for you.
This is my catharsis post before we get back to work tomorrow.
They say you can put a silk hat on a pig but that pig still stinks underneath. The more I listen to Obama and his cheerleaders, most depressingly those on "our" side like Brooks and Frum, the more I realize that for all their 'sophistication' in terms of rhetoric, oratory, style and whatnot, their underlying messages are still nothing more than a stinky pig. Last night may have been the first time that even the silk hat seemed just a tad less stunning. I credit that largely to the 'enemy camp' inhabitants to whom Obama chose to pitch his "strategy" for finishing the War in Afghanistan without winning.
Sophistication coupled with substance is a wonderful thing. Substance without sophistication is likewise a wonderful thing. Sophistication without substance is useless, pretentious and, when offered as policy by leaders, ultimately dangerous. That is the defining characteristic of this Administration: Sophistication without substance. And listen, I completely understand and happen to agree mostly with those who see Obama's antics less sophisticated than megalomania. But hey, I'm supporting the President here so we'll stick with sophistication.
I can't add anything to the discussion here that hasn't already been said by folks in more lighted positions. But to me, what Obama did last night is give up before having tried. He announced to our enemies that we're out the back door once everybody's through the front; 'just lay low until re-election season comes around and we'll be out of your hair'. Everybody happy now?
He just doesn't seem to understand the eternal truth that he can't please all of the people all of the time. He could have brought everyone home now, placated his entire base, pissed off a lot of conservatives (who will never vote for him anyway) and stopped the bloodletting of American soldiers in a War the Commander-in-Chief isn't interested in winning. Or, he could have given McChrystal the 80,000 troops he wanted, pissed off most liberals (who will still vote for him) and placated conservatives who, likewise, won't vote for him anyway but would have given our Generals and our troops a real chance at winning the war.
But he did neither of those. He picked the most unbelievably asinine road. One was paved to the Left and one was paved to the Right; Obama went down the middle through the briars and the brambles and he ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go. The question, as always, is why?
My cynicism is back with a fury dear readers and I cannot, for the life of me, come up with any other rational answer except that this is a calculated political move with very little regard for the flesh and fortune of either the Afghan people or the soldiers in country. Please, please, give me another answer. I desperately want to believe something else makes sense. This move seems neither calculated to winning nor calculated to ending the War. Picking the middle here seems destined to lose.
Maybe I'm just still shook from watching the cadets listen to Obama and seeing an eerie blend of contempt, boredom and concern in many of their eyes. This is possible and I recognize that. But, while I will keep reading and thinking about why Obama did what he did, as of this moment it looks like nothing more than dereliction of duty and a calculated political course of action.
Like several other times I've drawn a conclusion from events that have taken place thus far during Obama's tenure, I truly hope that I'm wrong.
Russ
Russ
Thanks!
Reader Comments