He has to take a decision sometime! When will it be?
It seems that it isn’t just we evil reich-wing conservatives who have been wondering when President Obama was going to take his decision on our goals and strategy in Afghanistan:
Frustration mounts over Obama’s fatal indecision
As Gordon Brown defends Britain’s Afghan mission, US comes under pressure to decide on strategy
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Barack Obama is coming under mounting international pressure to make an early decision on his strategy in Afghanistan amid fears of a dangerous drift as he agonises over his next moves.
Today Gordon Brown will mount a strong defence of the British presence in Afghanistan. He will say that the training of Afghan security forces by British troops must continue despite the killing of five soldiers by a policeman this week. “We cannot, must not and will not walk away,” he will declare. The Prime Minister will not enter the intense debate over whether the US President should approve a request from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send 40,000 more troops.
But there is growing concern in London and in Nato governments about the time it is taking for the Obama administration to decide its strategy. “It’s make your mind up time,” one minister said. A Ministry of Defence source added: “Without a decision there is a concern that the British public will lose faith.”
John Hutton, the former Defence Secretary, said: “When you are in the middle of a campaign like this, you have got to make decisions promptly. You need a proper wartime mentality.”
Janet Napolitano, the US Homeland Security Secretary, insisted there could be no “rush to judgement” over a question that “deserves full consideration”.
In a major speech in London this morning, Mr Brown will declare that Britain is in Afghanistan out of necessity, not choice. He will insist that the war is winnable with the right strategy - building up the Afghan security forces - which is being pursued. He will admit that training the Afghan army and police force is risky but say: “We will not give up this strategy of mentoring, because it is what distinguishes a liberating army from an army of occupation.”
Echoing Winston Churchill, he will say: “Just as in the past we learned of the bravery and sacrifice of British soldiers in the first and second world wars; in their fight to protect freedom in our nation and the world; so our children will learn of the heroism of today’s men and women fighting in Afghanistan, protecting our nation and the rest of the world from the threat of global terrorism.”
One very obvious thing to note: the decision of the President of the United States is, in effect, binding on the soldiers of the United Kingdom and from other NATO nations. If President Obama takes a decision to continue to fight and seek victory over the Taliban, al Qaeda and Islamism in general, NATO will continue the fight; if President Obama decides that the war is unwinnable, and cuts and runs withdraws American troops, Prime Minister Brown and the other NATO leaders will have no choice but to withdraw as well. The President of the United States is the de jure Commander-in-Chief over our armed forces, but he is, in many ways, the de facto Commander-in-Chief of the armies of several other countries.
At some point, the President is going to have to decide what to do. As of today, 19.85% of his (hopefully only) term in office has elapsed; a full fifth of his term will be over come Sunday. Perhaps Secretary Napolitano’s statement about not rushing to judgement makes sense, but surely taking a whole fifth of the President’s term in office to take a decision concerning the lives of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines under his command isn’t considered rushed.
One of the most damaging advertisements against now defeated Governor Jon Corzine (D-NJ) was one in which the Governor was shown saying, in his own words, “Hold me accountable.” At what point does President Obama become accountable?
Nangleator:
I feel a bit of impatience myself, since I don’t think we have a strategy for winning this war, and we don’t even have a definition of “winning” in the first place. I respect the opinions of those in favor of the war. They may be correct. 40,000 more guns might solve the big problems over there. But it seems disingenuous for the proponents of the war to use each and every casualty as a reason to say, “Do more, Mr. President! Do it now!” A few soldiers died, so you better hurry up and send tens of thousands more into danger.
6 November 2009, 9:55 amcbmc:
What does the “cut” in “cut & run” refer to? Is it part of the phrase “cut losses”? Are you guys really that eager to put more Americans in harm’s way over this one?
6 November 2009, 10:09 amDana Pico:
Nangleator wrote:
At what point, then, should we press the President to take his decision? He’s two days short of having completed 20% of his term; that seems like a lot of time to me. January 20, 2010, would make 25% of his term done; should we expect a decision by then?
At what point does not rushing into a decision become not doing anything at all?
6 November 2009, 10:12 amYorkshire:
If you go back a year and a half ago, Obama and his field generals had no problem changing strategies, moving assets to states where needed, fine tuning his message, and all things needed to make instant decisions on his march to election victory. So, the ability to form a decision when it comes to his personal wants is instinctively there, his inability to make decisions on behalf of the country is missing. He wasted no time accepting the Nobel Award and made plans immediately to go to Norway.
6 November 2009, 6:52 pm