When is a photo-op not a photo-op? When the press is only informed "on condition of secrecy"
"The White House kept Mr. Obama's plans off his schedule, informing a small group of traveling reporters in advance on condition of secrecy."
"Mr. Obama was expected to observe a somber moment on the tarmac of the base without public comment." I don't think we've heard the last of this, however . . .
Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is a shrewd political operator; every move he makes is calculated for the maximum political effect.
These past couple of weeks have seen the media on a renewed full-court-press to relive the heady days of 1968 - remember a little thing called the Tet Offensive? That's when we met the Viet Cong and the NVA on the battlefield and wiped the floor with them. 45,000 dead Communists later, Walter Cronkite announced to the world that America was losing the war. This maneuver is known as "Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory".
The truth is, we won Vietnam. We won it in 1968 right after Tet. Then we won it again a year later. Then we won it again during the Christmas bombings. The trouble is, we never consolidated our victories with an invasion of the North. We won and we won and we won until we got tired of winning, and then we packed up our bat and ball and went home. Millions of Viets died in the ensuing Communist bloodbath.
STORMBRINGER TRUISM: When you are in a war, the stupidest thing to do is anything but whatever it takes to win it.
True to script the media is at it again: this week I enjoyed the privilege of watching the sublime philosopher Chris Matthews in a discussion with America's greatest military thinker, the brilliant dopesmoker Woody Harrelson.
Woody Harrelson: "I think we should get out of Afghanistan."
Chris Matthews: "Yes I agree with you, I think we should get out."
Woody: "In fact, I don't know why we're even there in the first place. I think we should get out."
Chris: "Yes, it's like Vietnam, after 1968 it was lost. I think we should get out of Afghanistan."
It was sickening to watch this pair of geniuses make the same pronouncements that cost us Vietnam, and cost the lives of millions of Vietnamese. The only thing Afghanistan has in common with Vietnam is that they are both low intensity conflicts.
Afghanistan is nothing like Vietnam: A) the Viets never sneak attacked New York City, causing 3000+ civilian casualties and B) US / Australian / South Korean / South Vietnamese casualties were 4,954 killed; 15,917 wounded; 926 missing in January-February 1968 alone - we've had about that in eight years in Afghanistan.
And so we see the same old equation: ANY number of US casualties is unacceptable to the left. The writing is on the wall - the press is getting into body count math = game over for USA, we're throwing in the towel. No consideration for what this will mean to the people we leave behind, of course.
Right now my buddies in the Stan are reporting to me that the Taliban shot their wad during their Spring Offensive, that they are spent and done for; I am told that we are shooting them like fish in a barrel and that the raghead bodies are stacking up like cordwood. We don't hear a thing about that in the press. Instead, we have a photo op showing The One using dead American servicemen as props.
This is absolutely disgraceful. I predict B.O. will twist this solemn occasion for sober reflection as justification deny General McChrystal's request for more forces.
Then he will go play some more golf.