President Obama's speech a few weeks ago on Iraq left me a bit queasy.
I had urged him to make a strong case for why 50,000 American soldiers should remain in the
line of fire in Iraq. I wanted him to be as compelling in speaking to the
soldiers who remained as I expected him to be in speaking about the
soldiers who left. And in my opinion, his speech did not hit that mark as
well as it could have.
My concern was that without a stronger line of communication between the commander-in-chief and the troops in the field, we would start to see reports
about disconnect and alienation. And so we have. Now a
single article quoting one or two disgruntled grunts is hardly an indicator of
a budding mutiny. But it could be an indicator of a more widely held
sense that the president is losing interest in what the troops are
doing over there. The consensus interpretation of Obama's speech -- fairly
or unfairly -- was that his call for America to turn the page was a signal that
he would be turning his attention elsewhere. That may play well with
Obama's political base, but as the Reuters account suggests, it may not play as
well to the troops in the field.
Media accounts are also playing up the instances of combat that have occurred
since Obama announced that the combat mission was completed. Over time,
that disconnect will become increasingly awkward to explain to the American
people. But it is the task of explaining the situation to the troops that
is the more pressing concern, and I hope Obama's handlers are alert
to the issue.
Read More
(0)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE