Just When You Thought He had Decided to Decide

NPR reported this evening that the President had narrowed his list of options regarding Afghanistan to a mere handful, all of them involving the insertion of more troops. Finally a decision was forthcoming!

Not so fast. Politico reports this:

POTUS will not accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, and instead will push "for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government," AP is reporting.

Obama held his 8th Afghan meeting today, to discuss how long it would take to implement the various options for troop increases he's considering. The White House stressed that no decision has been made yet, and that the president is insistent that any new commitment will not be open-ended.

So it's back to the drawing board. Meanwhile our soldiers in Afghanistan soldier on.

Comments

[George Mason]

Again we have an example of Obamas inability to make a decision. He delays apparently in hope that someone else will handle it or that it will all go away. This is another display of his incompetence to lead. Why would anyone be surprised. Here is an individual who has never held a position of responsibility in his life until now. He has never held responsibility that would rise to the level of running a cash register at McDonalds and today he is President of the United States. His campaign was all about hope. We all better hope he figures it out soon.

[Erik]

GM: Would you prefer the management and decision-making style of his predecessor?

[KB]

Erik: yes, actually, if that were the only choice. Pretty much all that is coherent in Obama administration policies is a result of maintaining decisions that Bush made. Meanwhile, we still don't know what the Afghanistan policy is, what the Gitmo policy is, and have no idea what the President would do if Congress handed him a pen and invited him to write the reform bill himself. There is no there there.

[Erik]

KB: Well, the Obama Administration inherited a mess in many ways, and it takes time to clean that up. Policy doesn't turn on a dime. Obama and company have been ambitious with Health Care Reform and that will be a very big thing, indeed.
If Obama reverses the Bush the Younger's seriously flawed Afghanistan policy that would be another big thing. You might not the like the "there" but it is there nonetheless.

[George Mason]

Erik; The Obama people signed on to the Bush approach in Afghanistan when they took office. Now that the commander in the field has offered a way forward to deal with an evolving situation Obama demonstrates a lack of decisiveness. It would be a breath of fresh air if you could provide some rational reasoning behind your
post rather than the simple minded sloganeering and chronic whining that has become the soundtrack of the Obama administration. We are engaged with an enemy that has declared war on the free world. It requires a serious minded approach not a political one.

[Erik]

GM:
I'm not whining and I'm not using simple minded slogans; your tone is appreciated.

[Erik]

There is a strong case for cutting a deal with elements of the Taliban and pulling back our presence. Our ambassador to Afghanistan also is calling for a different approach. Presidents should not blindly follow the advice of their generals; according to our Constitution it is exactly the opposite. So, the Obama Administration is taking it's time to come to decision. A deliberative process does not suggest that they taking a frivolous approach, again, the opposite can be asserted. With Bush the Younger, we had a serious of impulsive decisions that did not turn out very well at all. I'm grateful we are taking our time on this one; it is the sign of a mature, confident leader.

[KB]

Erik: Obama is creating his own problem here. His Press Secretary announced that he was about to decide between four different plans and then, suddenly, it was announced that he was rejecting all four and going back to the drawing board. That is not a sign of careful deliberation. It is a sign of disarray.

Talk of "cutting a deal with the Taliban" is self-deception. These are not the kind of people who are inclined to honor deals. Nonetheless, I agree that there is something to be said for getting all out. The only other reasonable alternative is to go all in. The trouble is that either alternative would require courage and decision, and I don't see any sign that the President is capable of either.

And what does it say that you and President Obama can't seem to think of a stronger defense of this administration's policies than: "it ain't Dubya"?

[Erik]

KB: With all due respect, the "all or nothing" strategy that the Bush Administration ("either you are with us or against us") alienated our allies (remember "Old Europe") and encouraged our enemies. Like South Vietnam, we've lost Iraq--it was never ours to begin with--and we will likely be forced out of Afghanistan--like the Russians before them, the British before that, etc. What Obama and company are trying to do is apply "soft power" that is more diplomacy than the hard power of a military fist. Will it work out in end? It is far too early to tell. What hasn't worked and was judged a failure by the voters is the Bush-Cheney "one percent" solution. I'm willing to concede that 50 years from now, historians may judge Bush as they now view Harry Truman. I find that highly, highly, unlikely, though. Obama has continued some Bush policies---with modifications and broken with others---see the upcoming trial in NYC. Obama is inherently quite prudent and cautious in his decisionmaking. Would it have been better to start with a strongly defined health care plan? Well, Clinton did that, Gingrich and the GOP mobilized, defeated him on that and were able to capture the House and keep it for over a decade. Obama, learning from history, decided to come up with general principles and let others fill in the details. And now it looks like we will get substantial health care reform of a very different character than Bush's more corporate approach, which did nothing to contain costs and only filled drug company coffers. So, the defense rests ;-)

[KB]

Erik: Obama has been alienating our allies in Europe and elsewhere must faster and more egregiously than Bush did. European leaders now think that Obama just isn't interested in them. Obama is apparently thinking of skipping the Copenhagen Conference just as he skipped the Berlin Celebrations. Poland thinks it has been sold to the Russians. Sarkozy has lost patience with the Hyde Park Messiah. The people of Israel think they have no friend in the White House.

You seem very eager to surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe you are right to think that way. But Obama's "soft power" isn't achieving anything, is it? In exchange for Poland and the Czech Republic, the Russians gave us ... nothing. Obama's open hand to Iran got, well, spit on. Obama went to China and praised their civilization. He got a meeting with a bunch of Communist Youths that was not televised and no agreements whatsoever.

Let's give Barack Obama credit. He is putting his lovely ideas to the test. So far, they look altogether without substance.

[Erik]

KB: It is not in my power to "surrender" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Facts are facts,I think that it is prudent to withdraw before more precious blood and treasure is wasted. The French withdrew from both Algeria and Indo-China far too late. The Russians learned the same lesson in Afghanistan.
And I think you are still locked in a Cold War mindset, as you eloquently posted last week, we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the *end* of the Cold War. History tells us that Russia and the United States have been allies more often than not, so a strategic partnership is a real possibilty, backing away from contentious missile deployments may win favors from the Russians when it comes to "containing" Iran. A person with a Burkean temperment would not be so impatient with the Obama Administration's speed of decision making. Remember, it has been a long time since the Democrats have controlled the White House and with strong majorities in Congress. Learning how to wield power effectively takes time.

[KB]

Erik: I acknowledged that withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan might be the right policy. But that might mean turning both places over to our worst enemies. Is the Obama Administration willing to accept that outcome? For such a policy to make sense, we would have to approach interventions very differently than we do. We would have to be unscrupulously brutal, so that the folks who inherit the rubble, whoever they are, will make sure they never invite us back again. Are you willing to endorse such brutality?

As for Russian and American partnerships being "a real possibility," I am not sure what "real" means. Nor am I comforted by the possibility that "backing away from a contentious missile deployment may win favors from the Russians when it comes to "containing" Iran." What does "may" mean? Have the Russians shown any sign of cooperation? There is not a shred of evidence that Obama's policy toward Russia and China has any chance of producing results.

Finally, as to the "speed" of Obama's decision making, every day that goes by without a decision is a day that our troops in Afghanistan don't know what they are doing. If you want to know what that feels like, read Hemingway on Spain. But what is really disturbing is that Obama keeps announcing that he is about to decide, and then puts the decision off. That looks pathological to me.

Thanks again for the comment. Where the Hell is A.I.?