Obama Plays the Great Game

I wish I have more confidence than I have in the President’s attention span on Afghanistan.  So far, he hasn’t seemed much interested in foreign policy.  But he certainly seems heading in the right direction.  From the New York Times:

With a bloody suicide bombing near the Khyber Pass adding urgency to his words, President Obama announced on Friday that he plans to further bolster American forces in Afghanistan, increase aid to Pakistan, and set strict standards for measuring progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in both chaotic countries.

The United States was attacked by this land-locked, backward nation.  The blow was more severe than any since Pearl Harbor.  We are in, and can’t get out any time soon.  It’s a tough nut to crack, but I think we can crack it.  If, and this is a big if, we are willing to devote enough resources and attention to the problem. 

But sooner or later the President is going to have to stop leaning on his predecessor. 

President Obama promised neither to write a “blank check” nor to “blindly stay the course” if his risky new strategy, which includes the addition of 4,000 troops in a training role and several benchmarks for judging progress, does not achieve its ambitious goals.

This constant “well at least I’m better than Bush” business is unbecoming of a President.  History will judge the two presidencies.  Meanwhile Obama has to stand on his own. 

Comments

[A.I.]

Assuming you are referring to: "...neither to write a 'blank check' nor to 'blindly stay the course' ", I'm not so sure Obama's purpose is to show he "...at least is better than Bush." Bush is history and we all know it. Meanwhile, their is a growing movement on the left advocating a quick exit from Afghanistan. To me, Obama's comments are reassurance that he will conduct Afghan operations in a pragmatic manner and that he is a reluctant warrior. That's important to we "peaceniks" no matter the history of a conflict.

[Mac]

Ken, I apologize, but I just don't see where you are coming from on this one. The President has a responsibility to protect the American People, in fact, that his #1 priority. Now, he's doing the right thing here by listening to his Battle Commanders on the ground. They had alot of say over getting additional boots on the ground in Afghanistan and the President heard them loud and clear. He's already commanding that respect from them and his soldiers because they know he cares and listens to them. Afghanistan was always the central fight and we got our eyes off the ball with the invasion of Iraq. So, the President is doing the right and responsible thing here, which should have been done years ago and that is to take the fight to Afghanistan and Pakistan. My support is behind my Commander-in-Chief 110%...because our national security remains at stake while Al Qaida resides in their safe haven up in the mountains of both countries.

[KB]

A.I.: Derogatory references to his predecessor are a staple of Obama's addresses. I think this is bad form. Even Bill Clinton, who had no sense of decorum whatsoever, thought the future was more important than the mistakes of Bush 41. But I concur in part as to the motive. Obama wants to maintain the sense of a new beginning, even when he is doing exactly what Bush would have done in a third term. But he also needs to shore up his left.

Mac: Just out of curiosity, is Obama capable of making a mistake? No? I didn't think so. You might have missed it, but I said Obama's Afghanistan policy seemed to be moving in the right direction. But I couldn't help noticing that, in his recent address to Congress, he barely mentioned foreign policy. I would note that I was an enthusiastic supporter of Ronald Reagan as you are of Barack Obama. But I was never behind Reagan "110%." Presidents need to be challenged. And not two or three years from now, but right now and always.

[A.I.]

Perhaps I explained poorly. Obama won. Why would he be running down past Bush policies now when they essentially are irrelevant? His main concern is waning support within his base for expanded military presence in Afghanistan. If his base is not reassured of the efficacy of his Afghan policy, he may be forced to abandon the effort. That, I think you and I agree, would not be a good thing.

[KB]

A.I.:

I think we are essentially in agreement. Obama needs to keep his base in line, but a really large part of his base went to bed and woke up hating Bush for eight years. They aren't ready to give that up. But he is President now, and ought to put aside things that are, as you say, irrelevant. He isn't putting them aside just yet.

[Mac]

I respect your opinions, however, I continue to support my Commander-in-Chief 110% on this one issue: national security and the Afghanistan War.

[connie conservative]

I'm glad you think Obama is tough on national security and his new war. You are welcome to your opinion. I think you need to look at the facts though. He isn't doing anything about border security. His cabinet appointments and Pelosi are welcoming the illegals and I'm sure will make them all legal. He's cutting the military budget. He's being challenged by North Korea, China, Iran because they know he is weak and won't do anything but "talk." And even Russia couldn't win in Afghanistan. When the going gets tough there, he will turn tail and run. So much for our national security and the war.