More on Obama's Lack of Action on Afghanistan

I knew someone somewhere would find a way to try to justify Obama's lack of movement on Afghanistan. Here's Andrew Sullivan...

The news that Obama has refused to sign off on any of the four major options presented to him in Afghanistan reminds me of why he was elected president. This critical decision - arguably the most critical of his young presidency - is one that will not be rushed the way such decisions often are. His insistence that the civilian branch truly control policy there and that empire not be passively accepted as a fait accompli are real signs of strength in the struggle to recalibrate American foreign policy. Can you imagine Bush ever holding out like this on the military?

...What we are seeing here, I suspect, is what we see everywhere with Obama: a relentless empiricism in pursuit of a particular objective and a willingness to let the process take its time. The very process itself can reveal - not just to Obama, but to everyone - what exactly the precise options are. Instead of engaging in adolescent tests of whether a president is "tough" or "weak", we actually have an adult prepared to allow the various choices in front of us be fully explored. He is, moreover, not taking the decision process outside the public arena. He is allowing it to unfold within the public arena. Others, moreover, are allowed to take the lead: McChrystal, or Netanyahu, or Pelosi, in the case of Af-Pak, Israel-Palestine and health insurance, respectively. Obama encourages the process but hangs back, broadly - and persistently - pursuing certain objectives without tipping his hand on specifics or timing.

So the troop question is rather like the public option question.

This is idiotic political jujitsu at its best. In case Sullivan has forgotten, President Obama was not dithering when it came to the health care bill -- he wanted it passed before the August congressional recess. Obama wanted it done then for political reasons, at a time when his support of the public option was unwavering. But he certainly wasn't then (and isn't now) arguing for extended consideration of the issue by the powers that be in Congress. Note that in other instances, Sullivan has no problem holding Obama's feet to the fire for a decision, at least when the issue is important to him (and on the issue of gays in the military, Sullivan is right that Obama should follow up on his promise and incur the political wrath -- but the fact that he won't do so is further evidence that the President, despite all his high-minded rhetoric, is a political animal).

This is one of the things that infuriates me about Obama's supporters and defenders -- when he acts like a typical political hack, they defend it as a sign of maturity and/or innate brilliance. They see his tendency for "voting present" as a feature, not a bug. That's all well and good, but stop trying to act like it's anything less than a political calculation. You can capably argue that making a decision on whether to give McChrystal more troops is more important than health care (and I would agree on that part). And you might extend that to claim that it deserves more time because of the import of the decision... except it: (a) belies the argument for urgency on health care; (b) can be refuted by noting that the health care bill involves further government involvement/potential takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy; and (c) may make precisely the opposite point -- that it's urgent we make a decision on this, which might involve the President meeting much more often on this topic with McChrystal.

Meanwhile, Tom Maguire piles on the issue of Sullivan's comparison...

What can we imagine about Bush? A toughie! I can imagine his Secretary of Defense grinding down the initial military numbers for an invasion of Iraq until we arrive at "too few troops". Bush sure ignored the hell out of the Pentagon then, and how did that work?

Or, I can imagine Bush promoting a surge in Iraq at a time when nearly everyone, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were ready to march in a different direction. That worked a bit better.

Of course, totally missing from Sully's praise of Obama's current hand-wringing is a recognition of the fact that Obama announced a new strategy last March, and appointed McChrystal to implement it. Was that haste and folly, and has Obama grown in office so that he now feels comfortable delaying endlessly (the Times now says a decision is more likely in December)?

(hat tip: Instapundit) I tend to agree (and it's rather depressing) with Maguire's conclusion that we can't win in Afghanistan unless Obama is committed to winning. Right now, I think Obama's committed to his political future first and victory second. The fact that Gen. Eikenberry, once the commanding U.S. General in Afghanistan and now the U.S. Ambassador, disagrees with general McCrystal's assessment is important -- but as Legal Insurrection notes, Eikenberry hasn't exactly been a brilliant prognosticator when it comes to Afghanistan. And Neo-Neocon aptly compares Obama to Hamlet while concluding...

One of the things Obama seems to either be unaware of, or to not care about, is the psychological effect his stalling has on the troops and on our enemies. It demoralizes the former and cheers the latter.

Wars, as well as nation-building and economic development, are not just a matter of tactics. They involve perceptions about will and commitment. The enemy (be it the members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the poppy-dealers of Afghanistan) size up the opposition. If the US is thought to be weak or indecisive, it appears to them to be extremely worthwhile to continue on the present course against the US in hopes of prevailing in the end, whatever might happen in the short run after Obama finally makes his much-awaited decision.

That was a huge part of the calculation by the enemy in Vietnam, and it worked very well for them. Vietam was a war of attrition; the enemies there calculated that they had more tenacity than we did, and they were correct. Obama is sending a similar message to enemies in Afghanistan—and around the world.

(hat tip: American Digest) I tend to think of our troops as pretty strong and able to withstand all sorts of boneheaded decisions by people in command, so I anticipate they'll find a way to handle Obama's dithering. But the point about our enemies is spot-on, even if I despise the decision to use Vietnam (yet again) as a comparison.

Then again, maybe this is all political prelude to a decision to send troops by Obama, as Mickey Kaus suggests. If so, I'd argue this is even worse -- if Obama has already made a decision and is engaging in political theater simply to keep his base from rebelling, he's not doing his job as Commander-in-Chief.

But ultimately, the Hamlet comparison is pretty depressing. I have no problem with people saying we should take our time to make the right decision -- see the health care debate. But at some point a leader has to make a decision. Or maybe there's a better way of saying it.