my much discussed [?] comment post on Abu Maqawama re what I considered their misreading of Obama's Iran strategy:
Then why did Gate's come out a month or so ago and say basically that there's no way Israel will be bombing Iran? I'd say there's a great deal of uncertainty in US military about how to approach Iran problem, and I'd say that recent comments from Mullen suggest that some in military are not quite 'comfortable' with their commander in chief.
And then just this morning Barak comes out and says Obama's 'negotiation' tactics are necessary for good optics but useless aside from that if your goal is an Iran without nukes. Israel has been clear about it's intentions, whether that clarity is a bluff or not who knows, but their position has made perfect sense no matter; the Obama administration seems to be at odds with itself and unsure of where it's going - my impression is that much like with the economy they want to appear as if they're pursuing the 'enlightened' path but in reality they're just throwing nuanced liberal rhetoric against the wall and hoping it sticks.
People on this blog may want to contend that at least when it comes to Afghanistan that's not the case but I disagree - Obama embraced a 'new' Afghan policy in the campaign not because he had some clear vision of the way things should be but because he needed to project military 'gravitas' and he couldn't do so viz Iraq for obvious reasons - remember he started talking about Afghanistan before a concrete COIN playbook was in place, before the surge - ie, he had no idea what he was getting into in Afghanistan, it was just rhetoric - and now he's chosen a sort of half in, half out approach that is not likely to get you where you wanna be.
I see the same MO at work re Iran - he spills a bunch of liberal rhetoric about 'talking with the enemy' but reality proves, will prove to be a bit more unpleasant than that.
