But they do not know if he possesses the trait that is more important than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.

Their second concern is political. They do not know if President Obama regards Afghanistan as a distraction from the matters he really cares about: health care, energy and education. Some of them suspect that Obama talked himself into supporting the Afghan effort so he could sound hawkish during the campaign. They suspect he is making a show of commitment now so he can let the matter drop at a politically opportune moment down the road.

David Brooks NYT by way of RCP this morning (just a snippet)

<link>

I hear Obama is leaning towards a surge, but it'll be more of the same. Going to war on the cheap. I'm curious about the exact numbers though.

Very good points, IMO and I'll say a definite no on point one. He may have that characteristic; if it's his climate bill, health care, or spending other people's money on his utopia, but Afghanistan???

Obvsiously not.

The fact is Obama implemented a strategy, and thought that was it on Afghanistan, now they want more troops.

Hey the administration thought his stimulus worked so well some idiots actually are talking of a second stimulus.

Why not an second Afghan surge????

Money.

Obama really doesn't have a clue what he's doing, but he does know he wasn't counting on spending more money on Afghanistan.

He is a lawyer, but has no clue what was in his stimulus, or the climate bill. All he knew was he trusted the communists who wrote the bills, and would just sell it. His commitment on that is absolut.

Afterall he did a surge, and everything he does is correct, sufficient, and needs no amendment, why does he not comprehend what has been done in Afghanistan isn't working???

He doesn't have the same compulsion and willingness to spend (to win) on military matters as McCain would have period.

Why else would it have taken him so long to review policy? It's the same thing with "drill here, drill now". He doesn't want to do it, and certainly didn't want to spend the money.

Spending money on domestic matters to buy votes??? All day long, but another surge?

He's just not that into you.

I'd stay and rant more about the extent to which Obama is a candy ass, but gotta go to work.

Das Vadanya you pinko bastards!

Lincoln? Churchill? Oh, I get it. The sideshow in Afghanistan is to the US today, as the Civil War was to the US and WW2 was to Great Britain. Right, that makes sense. (if you have shit for brains)

This is what Obama was saying about Afghanistan while he was lying his way to the White House. Now he says, "No Rush." Obama went from "Urgent" before the election to "No Rush" after the election, which resulted in October being the deadliest month, EVER!

------------------------------­--------

updated 10:46 p.m. EDT, Mon July 21, 2008 Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent'

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that United States needs to focus on Afghanistan in its battle against terrorism.

"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism," Obama said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq," he said.

Obama said troop levels must increase in Afghanistan.

"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three," he told CBS. "I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities..."

Obama has made Afghanistan a key focus of his foreign policy, saying he would make it the central front in the "war on terror" if elected.

<link>

Any troop increase will be a grant to McChrystal and an attempt to keep the campaign promise, but facts remain-

1. The American people by a majority want us out of Afghanistan. Obama keeps going with a "surge" into 2011, it will hurt his Presidency.

2. The Right will criticize anything, even if Obama deploys the full 40,000 that McChrystal wants. alice types will be told to scream "Not fast enough!" and after it becomes obvious that it's not working and we start pulling out "Not staying long enough!"

3. If a Republican gets elected in 2012....he or she will pull out of Afghanistan in a "Nixon 1973" move. If Obama gets sucked into 4 years of this stuff, and loses, no ambitious President, even a die-hard neo-con Repub, is going to want to link himself to a war that hurt TWO previous Presidents. They'll TALK tough in the primaries and General Election....then pull out within months of Inauguration Day and declare "peace with honor".

Point number one. Show me the poll. Obama stated he was going to increase the size and scope of the Afghan mission.

Before our size and role were fairly limited.

Now the General that replaced the man Obama fired is asking for more troops, and so we have stumbled upon one serious brain fart indeed.

Obama's Romulan brain is having technical difficulties up stairs, when this is fairly elementary.

He should probably just cash out completely, but he's ruled that out, and the other options look equally as unpalatable.

As I have stated before, this is over money.

Or it could be his nuts. Pretty sure it's money, but I'll digress.

So he's going to throw a bone, maybe 5-10, perhaps up to 20, but he wasn't counting on Afghanistan being this difficult.

But the fact remains, he got this report Aug 31, and I'm sure if it was leaked to the press, Obama knew before hand, simply because he is privy.

He's had a lot of time to think it over.

Those troops really should have already been on transit.

To prepare for the annual spring offensive.

He commited the US to an escalation, and now he doesn't want to play.

It's as simple as that, we wouldn't have this problem with McCain.

We'd still have a liberal in the white house, but not one who diddles himself while Rome burns.

And it's not the first time.

I don't think most people object to the Afghan war, just the way it has been prosecuted.

Point number two. I could have swore the loaded package included, ahem, 80,000, whilst 40,000 was the mid range.

And I have not really had time to look up on it, but the person on the radio mentioned the 40 k number, and that the surge will be significantly less than that, if what I heard was correct.

As for this idea Republicans are just being partisan, and are going to kick and scream like teenage girls, but the fact is, Obama is not a sacred cow.

You bastards elected him, and many of you treated Bush like shit.

If I'm not mistaken, the media did not handle Bush with kid gloves, ever. Lots of bitching and moaning. Bush is the Devil, Bush is Hitler, yada, yada, yada.

Lots of name calling, and tons of hateful shit talk, to say nothing of the nonstop witch hunts ie plamegate.

Point number three. You have no bloody idea what anyone is going to do in 2012, just sit back, and watch your precious Dauphin screw the dog.

From the first moment, does anyone recall Bush's motorcade being pelted with eggs???????

Back then dissent was patriotic.

Now it's sedition, and treason, what a fun country we have.