To Surge or Not to Surge, that is the Question

The Pennsylvania Avenue Hamlet will, sooner or later, decide what his Afghanistan strategy is going to be. It seems unlikely that he will pull out altogether, so he is apparently trying to decide when he will decide whether to insert the troops that his handpicked general thinks are necessary, or, probably, insert some but not all of the requested reinforcements and announce a new strategy that makes sense of the decision.

I can't quite think of anything like this in recent history. To be sure, the President needs to make such a decision carefully. But to leave everyone hanging, month after month, while our troops are fighting and dying on Afghanistan's plains, does not inspire confidence.

The U.S. is expected to provide world leadership. Where else would it come from? The President right now is in danger of losing confidence among our allies. Here is the London Times:

It is now two months since General Stanley McCrystal, the commander of US and allied forces in Afghanistan, told President Obama that a surge of at least 40,000 troops was required for the international mission in that country to succeed. Mr Obama is not obliged to follow his recommendation, but he is obliged to do something other than sit on his own hands. "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way," Mr Obama told the military, in a speech this week. This is not an unattractive sentiment. There is deliberation, nonetheless, and then there is dragging one's feet.

Now is not a time for a president to dither. Yesterday, a Taleban suicide squad stormed a United Nations guesthouse in Kabul, leaving six international staff dead and nine injured. The Taleban do not carry out such attacks at random. They understand well the context in which they act, and do so in order to sway a decision that they believe can be swayed.

And here is Der Spiegel:

The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US's most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the "AfPak" region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time.

There is no doubt that hardly a day passes in Europe without criticism of US policy. This has become a trans-Atlantic ritual. But despite this ritual, Europeans are still looking for one thing from the White House: leadership.

We're waiting, Mr. President.

Well, we are all waiting: Americans, Europe, our troops in the field, and the Taliban. But so far Hamlet is making lots of good speeches, but he isn't doing anything. This is looking like a pattern. It is eroding the President's respect among allies and enemies alike.

Comments

[George Mason]

Obama has more likely been studying the domestic political poles than the situation in Afghanistan. The opportunity to hand the enemy a decisive defeat is at hand. With Pakistan committing to defeating the Taliban in the western provinces (the hammer), the allies in Afghanistan should be moving aggressively against them in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan (the anvil). We are unable
to adequately support the Pakistani's on our side of the border because our
C-in-C is to busy playing golf, going to broadway shows and attending fund raisers. Instead of listening to his military commanders Obama is listening to
Axelrod.

[Cliff Hadley]

You've got to wonder about Obama's priorities. Health care is a crisis that requires all-out effort. Deciding how to proceed against jihadists sworn to kill us all is something to be delayed and ultimately "managed." Disgusting.

[KB]

I agree in part and dissent in part. This might be the moment to crush militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the President's problem is not such distractions as golf or healthcare reform. If he has a problem, and it seems he does, it is an inability to make a decision is such cases.

[George Mason]

You are correct KB. The golf, fundraising, etc. is the perception. Obama has
always tried to sidestep issues. He has almost gotten away with it too often. To go back to the FNC controversy, it was again FNC that raised the Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, ACORN, etc. connections. Obama's initial response was a classic "I
saw, heard, and did no evil." He allowed his cohort in congress to run wild with the "Stimulus" bill. He keeps blowing with the wind on the healthcare bill(s). He always seems to be hoping someone else will deal with the issue at hand and his friends in the media will not hold him accountable. Once again with Afghanistan
he seems to be hoping it will just all go away.