Fighting the Meh Fight
Pretty much everybody has probably read the NYT writeup of Bob Woodward’s new book. But this is the graf that stuck out for me:
The president concluded from the start that “I have two years with the public on this” and pressed advisers for ways to avoid a big escalation, the book says. “I want an exit strategy,” he implored at one meeting. Privately, he told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to push his alternative strategy opposing a big troop buildup in meetings, and while Mr. Obama ultimately rejected it, he set a withdrawal timetable because, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”
Something here doesn’t add up. President Obama campaigned on the assertion that Iraq was a “distraction” and that Afghanistan was “the necessary war.” And yet he can’t even sell his own party on the necessity of it? Either there’s something wrong with the Democrats as a whole, or with our Democratic President in particular.
Or both.
As for Mr. Obama himself, the book describes a professorial president who assigned “homework” to advisers but bristled at what he saw as military commanders’ attempts to force him into a decision he was not yet comfortable with. Even after he agreed to send another 30,000 troops last winter, the Pentagon asked for another 4,500 “enablers” to support them.
The president lost his poise, according to the book. “I’m done doing this!” he erupted.
To ensure that the Pentagon did not reinterpret his decision, Mr. Obama dictated a six-page, single-space “terms sheet” explicitly laying out his troop order and its objectives, a document included in the book’s appendix.
Mr. Obama’s struggle with the decision comes through in a conversation with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who asked if his deadline to begin withdrawal in July 2011 was firm.
“I have to say that,” Mr. Obama replied. “I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”
The Commander in Chafe, the Babe Ruth of Blame, looking for escape hatches and exit routes as he “prosecutes” the “necessary” war. All the tough talk about extending the fight into northeast Pakistan…pish posh.
Instead, we get the launching of drones, (his signature weapon, for multiple reasons, apparently) and the schoolmarmish “homework” assignments so our military leaders don’t “forget” to tie their hands behind their backs before they go out into the theater of operations.
Under this administration, we have now learned…it has been all about theater and none about operations.
Stephen, I normally avoid Vietnam comparisons, but it’s very apt in this case. Just as LBJ wanted to focus on his Great Society, and considered Vietnam an unwanted distraction he couldn’t just abandon, So it goes for Obama.
The president has been all about transformation, from health care to God knows what else, and would no doubt love to declare victory in Afghanistan, then leave. Afghanistan is his undesirable distraction.
Neither president could or can grasp the military mind, and both were far more focused on social change. Tremendous parallel. I would say the major difference is that Johnson was a master wheeler-dealer, while Obama is nearly incapable of compromise.
Think “projection.” Now think “code words”. Get it?
“Either there’s something wrong with the Democrats as a whole, or with our Democratic President in particular.”
Yes.
#4 I agree. The answer is both.
It’s good to know that if America loses the war in Afghanistan, we can take consolation in the survival of the Democratic party base.