Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama must rethink rethinking Afghanistan
His strategy deliberations are starting to look like dangerous indecision.
Doyle McManus
November 15, 2009
Barack Obama is in danger of giving deliberation a bad name.
The decision about whether to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan was never going to be easy, but events -- and a collision of egos in Kabul -- have conspired to make it even harder.
Obama was right to insist on a full review of whether U.S. interests are better served by expanding the American military footprint in Afghanistan or shrinking it.
But now, two months into his second "comprehensive policy review," after eight Cabinet-level meetings and several slipped target dates, the president still hasn't made up his mind.
In George W. Bush, we had a president who shot first and asked questions later. In Barack Obama, we have a president who asks the right questions but hesitates to pull the trigger.
Three weeks ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney accused Obama of "dithering." At the time, the charge sounded premature and partisan -- but now some of Obama's own supporters have begun to wonder whether Cheney was right....
...
...Those are hard questions to answer -- harder still when a policy debate lasts for months and becomes public. These aren't just style points; the battle in Washington is causing real problems for U.S. foreign policy, beginning with mixed messages to both allies and adversaries.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates described the dilemma succinctly last week: "How do we signal resolve -- and at the same time signal to the Afghans and the American people that this isn't an open-ended commitment?"
The long debate has made Obama look indecisive and uncertain -- because he has been. And the leaks of conflicting positions have given his critics ammunition for the postmortem debate over any decision he makes. If Obama chooses to go small, hawks will accuse him of ignoring the advice of his own military commander, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who asked for 40,000 additional troops. If he goes big, doves will accuse him of ignoring the advice of Ambassador Eikenberry, who said the additional troops wouldn't do much good.
When he ran for president, "no drama Obama" prided himself on a campaign organization that never aired internal disputes and always closed ranks in common cause. Not in this process, which has turned into a very un-Obamalike battle of leaks and counterleaks. This much transparency, alas, creates a problem: Washingtonians love to keep track of winners and losers. A well-managed process gives losers a chance to lick their wounds in private, without suffering public damage to their reputations. This one is more likely to end in public recriminations.
The debate has frayed relationships between the military officers who proposed the Afghan escalation and the civilian politicians (Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) who run the White House. White House officials were irritated when McChrystal's strategy proposal leaked in October, seeing it as an attempt by the military to box Obama in....
Barry Obolshevik has a delicate balancing act here.
On one hand he has his General Staff, the troops in country and their families. On the other he has the Code Pink moonbat freaks, who are a large part if the base that elected him.
Yup...That's a toughie.
Interesting talk today on CNN. A round table discussion on Obama's Asian tour. Several noted China experts were pointing out Obama is viewed as weak by China and the US is considered in decline. Way to represent Mr. President.
Hurry home and cuddle terrorists, while you mull over Afghanistan policy for a couple of weeks more.
Not on this forum, for starters.yea yea, where were you blowhards when Bush had Afganistan on thew back burner for 7 freaken years
Boooooooosh makes it all OK, then. It's amazing how Obama is so dependent on GWB for justification of what BHO does and doesn't do. One would think the liberals would hate that fact.Bush dithered. He did not put enough troops into Iraq to do what he was trying to do.
Of course when you expect to be greeted as saviours with open arms and those open arms turn out to be AK47's....
Boooooooosh makes it all OK, then. It's amazing how Obama is so dependent on GWB for justification of what BHO does and doesn't do. One would think the liberals would hate that fact.Bush dithered. He did not put enough troops into Iraq to do what he was trying to do.
Of course when you expect to be greeted as saviours with open arms and those open arms turn out to be AK47's....
charles, please, Bush put afganistan on the back burner almost immediately so he could pursue his fiasco in Iraq, those are the facts , deal with it
yea yea, that's why you idiots blamed Clinton the whole 8 years Bush was in office, right Cali, LOL can you say pot meet kettle, I knew you could
Funny thing about Bush, Clinton, and Obama that relates more to the Economy than the war.yea yea, that's why you idiots blamed Clinton the whole 8 years Bush was in office, right Cali, LOL can you say pot meet kettle, I knew you could
