You say “thinking” like it’s a bad thing…

The usual suspects at National Review’s The Corner are irked as hell at Obama for taking his time with a decision on Afghanistan:

What Is [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Obama thinking?

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama’s thinking.

Re: Obama & Afghanistan   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Most frequently received e-mail: “He’s voting present.”

She’s not used to presidents who think. She doesn’t like it.

‘Commander in Chief’ Is Not Just a Fancy Title   [Jamie M. Fly]

You could get whiplash watching the Afghanistan debate underway within the Obama administration. One day, it looks like the president has decided to send the majority of the additional troops requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and then the next day we are told that there is yet another meeting of the National Security Council to discuss new options.

Hurry up, goddamnit.

Eikenberry on Afghanistan   [Michael Rubin]

The leaking of U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Gen. (ret.) Karl Eikenberry’s opposition to Gen. McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan is the latest development in President Obama’s back-and-forth discussions of the way forward in Afghanistan…Presumably, any person objecting to McChrystal’s request, or putting forward their own plan, will have designed their plan to bring victory. So why not hear it? The difference between playing politics and more serious debate lies in the answer to the question, “How to win?” That assumes, of course, that that is our goal in facing the Taliban’s insurgency in Afghanistan.

Cause you know they might deliberately throw the war now just to make former President Bush look bad…

An Obama Threat We Can Believe   [Rich Lowry]

Even more drawn-out deliberation, should it be necessary…

“I’m not saying that we’ll be in a perpetual state of review, but the time the president has taken so far should signal to people that he will not hesitate to take a hard look at things and question assumptions if things are not moving in the right direction,” a senior White House official said.

It’s bad to closely evaluate complex, changing situations and adjust strategies as necessary. Far better to coalesce around a brainless slogan—like, say, “stay the course”—and stick with it no matter what.

And then, Rich “Starburst” Lowry just comes right out and says it:

For a ‘Dumb’ Afghanistan Strategy   [Rich Lowry]

At this point, Obama needs to settle for a “dumb” Afghan strategy. He’s clearly trying to be too cute and clever, and micro-managing aspects of the military campaign that are beneath his pay-grade. If he believes success in Afghanistan is important and a counter-insurgency campaign is the best way to achieve it, he should give McChrystal the troops he says he needs (actually, he should probably give him more if possible, to reduce the risk of failure). This business of examining the troop numbers province-by-province, and devising various “off ramps,” and parsing out what troop commitment will best pressure Karzai is a foolish attempt at an impossible exactitude. No plan so finely tuned from on high is going to survive its first contact with reality. Obama needs a “dumb” approach—figure out the basic strategy, resource it, and leave it at that.

Really? Ladies and gentlemen, this is what passes for the intellectual underpinnings of the Republican Party, and they are coming out four-square against silly old “thinking,” long-range planning and taking seriously the concept of civilian control over the military. No wonder they were so enthusiastic about GWB and Palin.

Posted by Betty Cracker on 11/13/09 at 06:02 AM • Permalink

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.