Obama smacked down as he dithers on Afghanistan

Krauthammer says:


On the political consequences of Obama’s indecisiveness:

I'm not sure it's a political problem. I think it's a problem of what it does to the morale of the military and of the commanders in the field.

You are in the middle of a war and you have an urgent request — this is not just a general but an urgent request. And the logic here — it is all spelled out in a sentence or two; it is not a difficult proposition — the logic is we're in a downward spiral. The enemy is gaining. We can stop them with American troops.

Once they are stopped and the spiral is reversed, as happened in Iraq as a result of the surge, then the Afghan army can, in principle, at least, take over, as happened in Iraq. That's the idea.

You either can act on that or not. It's not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he's studying all this. Obama is stalling because a) he doesn't know and b) he doesn't want to go politically against his own party.

That's when the McChrystal report was sent to Washington. That is three weeks ago. Obama has had a single meeting [onI'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."without a strategy. that report] since then.

He says he hasn't reached a conclusion — I suppose because he is spending all his time preparing for Letterman and speeches to schoolchildren — to focus on a war in which our soldiers are in the field getting shot at and, as the president himself is saying, without a strategy.

Now, the other date is the 27th of March, when Obama gave a speech in the White House flanked by his Secretaries of Defense and State, in which he said, and I will read you this, because it is as if it never happened, "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."

So we for six months have been living under the new Obama strategy, of which he says today we have none. And his next sentence is, again in March, "This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review" — not the beginning, the end of the policy review.

So it has been his policy, and now he tells us we don't have a cart and we don't have a horse.

What's happening here is he announced the strategy of counterinsurgency in March. He said at the time that we “cannot afford” an “Afghanistan that slides [back] into chaos.”

He said "My message to the terrorists who oppose us — We will defeat you," And now he's not sure he wants to defeat them.


On the political consequences of Obama’s indecisiveness:

I'm not sure it's a political problem. I think it's a problem of what it does to the morale of the military and of the commanders in the field.

You are in the middle of a war and you have an urgent request — this is not just a general but an urgent request. And the logic here — it is all spelled out in a sentence or two; it is not a difficult proposition — the logic is we're in a downward spiral. The enemy is gaining. We can stop them with American troops.

Once they are stopped and the spiral is reversed, as happened in Iraq as a result of the surge, then the Afghan army can, in principle, at least, take over, as happened in Iraq. That's the idea.

You either can act on that or not. It's not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he's studying all this. Obama is stalling because a) he doesn't know and b) he doesn't want to go politically against his own party.


'He will destroy the Democratic party' [Rich Lowry]

This Washington Post story captures the stark divide over Afghanistan, with a unified military command on the one side — including McChrystal, Mullen, and Petraeus — and a president who is not sure he wants to follow through on "the counterinsurgency strategy he set in motion six months ago" on the other. There's this anonymous quote from one observer: "He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war."

Isn't this extraordinary?

Obama will roil the Democratic party by sending more troops to fight the war that Democrats have said for years is the "necessary war" (in Obama's words), the central war in the fight against terror, etc., etc. It's hard to imagine a starker demonstration of bad faith on an important issue of national security. I write about this today in my column. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton yesterday said Obama is getting "the exact opposite" advice from McChrystal than from other counterinsurgency experts. She doesn't say who these people are. The Post story says Obama is also getting "assessments from the State Department, the intelligence community, and his White House advisers." Are those people — the White House politicos in particular are very down on additional troops — going to trump the commanding general on the ground? We're going to find out.