Obama's political posturing highlighted by Afghanistan indecision

President Obama has painted himself into the proverbial corner in regards to our mission in Afghanistan. On the campaign trail he consistently criticized the Bush administration, accusing them of diverting needed resources from Afghanistan and failing to wage a war of victory within the nation. However, as many of us warned then candidate Obama's rhetoric was based upon a need to demonstrate foreign policy strength rather than sound military strategy. President Obama promised the American people that he would lead us to victory over the Taliban and Al-Quaeda, but months of diverting attention from Afghanistan have culminated in the demonstration that President Obama only strategy for Afghanistan is to choose the path that will provide the least political damage.

Upon taking office, President Obama's lack of resolve in regard to Afghanistan was quickly demonstrated when he first referenced the "War on Terror" as an oversees contingency plan. However, the upsurge in violence and deaths of NATO soldiers prove that Afghanistan is indeed all out warfare.

The President's first and foremost obligation is to protect US citizens and fully support our armed forces. As a wartime President he has a further obligation to enact policies designed to achieve operational objectives and achieve victory in a manner that supports rather than strains our armed forces. The uptick in Afghanistan violence is not a recent event, but rather a pattern that has developed over the past two years as insurgents have fled the battle in Iraq to fight on more friendly soil. In large part, the success of the Iraqi surge in establishing security in that nation has directly attributed to the increased insurgency in Afghanistan. Yet, it has taken President Obama eight months to address the war in Afghanistan.

Supporters of the President will point to his increase in troop levels when he took office. However, that increase has not taken full effect and represented a fraction of the troop levels requested by our commanders in the field. The President was fulfilling a campaign promise, rather than instituting sound military strategy. Although the President took limited action following his inauguration, Afghanistan has since been largely ignored. Indeed, it was only after a leaked request for additional troops that the President was forced to address the War in Afghanistan.

What action has the President taken?

None. The first reports of troop level requests occurred more than 3 weeks ago and the Presidents response has been one of indecision. The President promised on the campaign trail that he had the "plan" for success in Afghanistan; however, it is safe to say that the White House response demonstrates that the President had no plan for victory, nor any consideration of developing a plan. The President has had eight months to develop his Afghanistan strategy and has waited until forced by the media to make a decision.

In the past week, the President has waffled on any decision with regard to troop levels and forward-looking strategy. He is now placed himself in a environment of choosing between the plans of our experienced commanders or those of lifetime politicians and bureaucrats. Such indecision is reminiscent of troop and supply requests that were unmet by President Johnson during the onset and early years of the Vietnam War. Just as President Johnson did, it now appears that President Obama's lack of experience and resolve will culminate in a decision in a "half-way" plan designed to portray a centrist position. Such a politically weighted decision would demonstrate a complete and total failure of leadership as Commander in Chief.

The mere reality that the President would adopt a strategy based upon political impact demonstrates the degradation of presidential leadership that has occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union. The American Electorate once chose statesman, individuals of integrity and character who demonstrated resolve and leadership when faced with crisis. Today it appears that the American electorate has become content with choosing career politicians lacking resolve and discussing the value of consensus building. If such leadership was present in 1930's, we would have been wholly unprepared for the onslaught of WWII and the attempts to direct public opinion into positions supporting our British allies never would have occurred. If such indecisiveness and reliance upon political implications existed in the early 1960's, the United States would still be the target of Cuban-based nuclear missiles today. We elect Presidents to make decisions and fulfill their obligations to this nation, we do not elect them to ignore the problems for months and then stall while they weigh the political implications of those decisions.

The lack of leadership in Washington truly has become a sad state of affairs.