There will be lots more to say on Afghanistan if Obama ever gets around to deciding whether or not to send in more troops....as his hand-picked general has requested, we might add. But for starters, it is useful to revisit Obama's position during the campaign when he recited the Democrat party talking points word for word. Iraq was the wrong war, no WMDs, no al Qaeda, Bush lied, etc. Also, he would have liked the chance to have a beer with Saddam, Uday and Qusay. (I made that last one up.) The dilemma he faced, however, was the dilemma all liberals face: namely how NOT to appear weak on national defense.
The answer was to focus on Afghanistan. The Taliban were an easier enemy to explain. Al Qaeda had definitely been hanging around and you didn't have all that Shia- Sunni- Kurd complication. So one would think that Obama would now be eager to take General McChrystal's advice. (And by the way, doesn't he remember that the surge in Iraq was successful?) So what is holding him back?
Well here is his current dilemma. If he doesn't support an increase in troop levels he will be perceived as having lost Afghanistan and will be a one-term President. He will be tagged rightly with a "weak-on-defense" label and it will stick. On the other hand his biggest fans on the far left will never forgive him if he doubles down. They are already dragging out the Viet Nam analogies and will turn on him quickly. There is some speculation that Obama will make a "split the baby" decision and send in some, but not all, of the 40,000 troops requested. There would be no other way to interpret this than as a weak-kneed decision. So will Obama risk alienating the Code Pink crowd? That is the question and the answer will say a lot about him.
Obama desperately wants to vote “present” on this one. He’s already tried to dish the decision off on congress – will you guys pay for the extra troops?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, no matter what he does he already appears weak by second guessing the advice of his own hand-picked general.