"... absent from the general's analysis is fact that Obama chose the war in Afghanistan as part of a cynical, short range political calculation - he did not embrace the conflict because he had a clear sense of how to fight it or why to fight it or what the strategic consequences of fighting or not fighting it might prove to be be - he chose 'the good war' because in order to beat Hillary and then Bush he needed to conjure up a militaryesque, commander in chief persona for himself that he could sell to both liberals and independents. Is it any wonder then that Obama doesn't know what he's doing, is at a loss when it comes to making real world military decisions? Or that maybe he's vulnerable to being pushed around by his generals because they know exactly what he is - a naive political opportunist who on a purely rhetorical level leveraged his facile opposition to the war in Iraq and support for the war in Afghanistan to promote his grandiose ambitions?
But regardless of that why exactly is it we want to assume that Biden's plan wasn't rejected for reasons of political expediency? I mean anyone who has followed the intense debate within the military about COIN knows why Petraeus et al would have had little time for Biden's plan - but why do we then assume that Obama was boxed in by the Petraeus vision of COIN? Seems to me rather that Obama was boxed in by his own naive embrace of the war in Afghanistan and that made Biden's small, contra Petraeus, endless CT engagements without clear victory version of the war politically untenable.
The left wing media has consistently misread and misrepresented Obama on war - he's been unduly lauded for his opposition to the war in Iraq as if his stance there was logical and nuanced and full of strategic brilliance [which it wasn't] and had nothing at all to do with savvy political calculation [which it absolutely did] - and likewise with his embrace of the war in Afghanistan during the primaries which the left has never either acknowledged or understood was all about political considerations. Take the long gestation period for the current Afghanistan policy: the distended process is always presented as a reflection of a studious Obama being so engaged on the problem and so wanting to get it right - but to me the drawn out process is more a reflection of Obama either being way in over his head and therefore unable to make a decision or, once again, the manifestation of political calculation ie he knew the policy would not sit well with his base so he had to give the impression it was the result of deep and profound soul searching and the application of an academy approved intellectual rigor - in other words, the long gestation period was a charade.
It's high time people accept the fact that Obama is a con artist - which happens to make him a very good politician and certainly I've never denied that in a very limited way he's a damn good politician - but the presidency demands leadership and Obama's no leader, and I didn't need Woodward's book to teach me that - it's been obvious since that celebrated keynote address in 2004 what the man's about and only the ideologically deluded should be surprised that the dream has been seriously roughed up by the unforgiving hand of reality..."
