For being quite well known and respected Ricks seems to write a lot of things that I find off the mark if not entirely wrong and in some cases just flat out dumb - he also tends to be a bit of an Obama apologist, although the post that prompted the response below was ostensibly meant to take Obama to task. I only repeat this 'cause I liked my jab at Obama's books - childish of me I suppose. Indeed.
"On Iran, I think, he has done pretty well-trends are certainly pointing toward a multilateral containment effort."
Where in the hell do you get that from? There's absolutely nothing that has happened to suggest that statement is true in any way. It is not in the interests of the oligarchies governing Iran, China and Russia to comply with what we want - so by containment I guess you mean the de facto condoning of nuclear proliferation amongst 'rogue' nations while hapless Western leaders make various aggrieved gestures and Obama climbs yet another stage to intone 'well, you see, this just isn't right - did these people not read my books?'.
And as far as Obama and Afghanistan are concerned you reporters completely missed the story here: Obama embraced the war as part of a political calculation to get elected and now he wants it to go away and he wants McChrystal to tell him how to make it go away but McChrystal is not telling him what he wants to hear and so he's stuck with a war he needed by didn't want. The 'dithering' you so lightly, almost harmlessly label him with is actually the result of a serious miscalculation that caused him to commit to a war he didn't understand and has now backed him into a corner: retreat and he'll look weak and America's reputation in the region will be further damaged no doubt leading to dire consequences; advance out of fear of losing and there's a good chance Afghanistan becomes his Vietnam.
