Afghanistan: During the 2008 campaign, President Obama wasn't worried about the Afghan government's corruption. He just wanted to empower our troops to win the war there. Why has the U.S. gone all gun-shy?

It was Bill Clinton who kept a borrowed miniature of Auguste Rodin's famous statue "The Thinker" in the Oval Office, but some might wonder if President Obama has turned into the statue itself.

After a report earlier this week that said Obama had finally made up his mind to give his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan the 40,000 new troops he asked for -- albeit in small doses -- a new reports say the president wants something different: a timetable-based war strategy to, as CBS News put it, "buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over."

Way back in the early stages of the last presidential campaign, however, Obama was telling voters that he already knew what he was going to do about Afghanistan. And that was win, because this war was "the central front" in the war on terror -- not Iraq, as President George W. Bush claimed.

The significance of the Obama campaign's Afghanistan policy position is tremendous. In his grueling struggle against then-Sen. Hillary Clinton during the primaries, Obama was the candidate of the left who energized the party's anti-war grass roots. He had voted against the Iraq War; she had voted for it.

But then, when it came time to take on war hero Sen. John McCain, Obama was inoculated against charges that he himself was anti-war. It became invaluable that he had cultivated the image of hawk regarding Afghanistan -- the smart war, juxtaposed against Bush's "dumb war" in Iraq.

"We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al-Qaida -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest," Obama wrote in his much-lauded article in the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

"Success in Afghanistan is still possible, but only if we act quickly, judiciously, and decisively," declared the Illinois junior senator who now, nearly two and a half years later, is dragging his feet about making the most pressing military decision of his tenure so far.

Where is the quickness now? Where is the decisiveness?

"We should pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces," Obama wrote in the article.

There was no talk then about corruption within the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai or the regime's legitimacy being factors in whether we beef up our forces there.

Today, Karzai's reputation seems to be of great concern to the White House. But the U.S. and Britain were troubled as far back as the summer of 2007, when, for instance, British foreign minister David Miliband visited Kabul to deliver personal, public pressure on Karzai to get tough on government bribery rackets. If anything, the Afghan regime is less corrupt today than it was then.

Clearly, candidate Obama was telling the voters that he already had an Afghanistan policy formulated, and that he was going to be hitting the ground running with it on day one as president.

Where, we wonder, did that policy go? Why, nearly 10 months into his term, is the president still ruminating about the "integrated strategy" we were told was long ago settled upon and carefully thought through?

It's hard not to come to the obvious conclusion that the hawkish stance was just a charade to win votes. The White House today is obviously looking for an endgame in the wars handed over to it, and to the president's way of thinking, that seems to mean a timetable.

But the Taliban has no timetable, just as the North Vietnamese did not. And neither does al-Qaida. Its strategy is to win, however long it takes. Soldiers are being killed today who might be better protected if an Iraq-style surge were in place in Afghanistan, as Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. Afghan commander, has requested.

The president promised quick action on putting a winning war strategy in place. Up to now what we've gotten is a lot of thinking.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091112/bs_ibd_ibd/20091112issues01

When it comes to the military and Obama he reminds me of a 20 year old fresh out of school,coming to a new command and a bunch of 30 year plus Generals handing him a mound of paperwork as thick as a telephone book and asking him what to do next.I am not sure if Obama is scared,lost,or just doesn't know what to do.If he hopes to get re-elected he better start showing some leadership.He is the head of the Military and not having a plan of attack is like leading a thousand men into the woods and telling them you have no idea where you are going or how to get back.I feel for our Soliders as I know it must be very stressful when the military your in has no idea what to do next.

IMO, Hussein doesn't want to kill off his Muslim buddies, (Taliban)
Might make him look bad in the Islam community.

oh yeah thomas like Bush was the strategic mastermind...that's why America can't handle a handful of teenagers in cargo shorts. What logic is it to blame Obama when the wars have been going on for 8 years?

We didn't learn our lessons from Vietnam.

“Those Who Don’t Know History
Are Destined To Repeat It”
– Edmund Burke

the way I see it, there are three possible things to do

1. continue as we are and feeding just enough troops and money to fight a "limited war". This will bleed our treasury and troops and keep the Afghans just alienated enough by our presence to hate us and start covertly working with the Taliban

2. Bail. cut and run and let the chips fall where they may. Karzai will prolly get his head chopped off and the Taliban will retake Afhganistan. and prolly eventually Pakistan too

3. Fight a war to win. You don't hammer a nail with a snowball. You use the biggest heaviest hammer you have. If this were the option I chose I would go all out. 200,000 troops


I think this is what is taking Obama so long. He is deciding which of these paths to take and I fear and expect he'll take the limited war and we'll be hemmoraging money and men for the next twenty years

I think its more about winning the Nobel peace prize handcuffing him.....the 40,000 troops requested by the general would already be committed if that hadn't been "annointed" upon him. Makes one wonder who was really behind that.

Respect your analysis though....for any more wars its gotta be your #3 from day one. NO MORE ATTEMPTS AT NATION BUILDING.

The British were there from 1829 to 1919 and they were not there to free the Afghan people.

The Russians were there from 1979 to 1992 and they were not there to free the Afghan people.

The Us even if they are telling you otherwise are not there for the benefit of the Afghan people.

The territory is an essential one to the middle east, that is the only reason they all wanted to occupy that area and as we can see are still trying.

When someone invades a country under the auspices of "freeing" it's people you should be seriously concerned if you are the people that are supposed to be freed.

the biggest thing bush had going for him was that he let those who knew what they were doing essentially have the reigns. Other than Cheney, of course, who needed a tighter leash. Obama just looks lost. His generals on the ground have given their reports and nobody has a better perspective. This decision should have taken two days at most.

There is obviously a political side of this we are not being directly told. Maybe it's as simple as not wanting to look like he rushed in, but I think he is between a rock and a hard place. On one side, he wants to duck and run, but on the other is the appearance of appearing weak. He cannot win his internal battle here.


This decision needs to be made based on what is really best regardless of what everyone thinks - not his own selfish ideals.

Hussein made a promise to treat the Muslims better and wanted relations with them.
If he sent more troops and attemted to win a war, he'd look like he was breaking his promise to them.

We all know how he hates breaking promises. Or, are those broken promises meant onl for Americans?