Afghanistan: Details Of Obama's Decision-Making Process

The New York Times issues what to them is most likely a wonderfully noble portrayal of a young CIC making up his mind on the Afghanistan War. But for some it may portray an indecisive politician more concerned with his political well being, one thinking more in terms of winning, or losing, mainly to the extent of how each might ultimately impact on him. There's a fair amount of indecisiveness couched within it, too.

The image and opening stroll through Arlington is certainly praise worthy in and of itself. But is that primarily where the head of a political intellectual fellow like Obama needs to be when deciding how to proceed in an already long but important war? He did say it was critical during the campaign.

Obama then went on to mostly overrule a General he himself appointed and cobbled together his own strategy based upon mainly political concerns. The hurry-up  and win it, or quit it, way it's being done doesn't strike me as particularly compassionate for our troops. Rushing into battle with perhaps a too rigid plan that already has an exit date could very well cost more lives than it saves. In the end, is throwing in one's cards because a war is politically unpopular a year out from from your re-election really the type of commander who deserves great praise?

Some might not find Obama's decision-making process to be everything the New York Times apparently does. But it certainly was kind of them to hand Obama such a glossy and wonderfully posed portrayal. I doubt they were ever nearly so kind to former President Bush, though close followers knew precisely how much pain he actually felt over every loss of life incurred in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But then, he didn't usually go strolling through Arlington with a New York Times photographer poised for a wonderful shot after having been invited along for the walk.

When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war. By moving the bell curve to the left, Mr. Obama decided to send 30,000 troops mostly in the next six months and then begin pulling them out a year after that, betting that a quick jolt of extra forces could knock the enemy back on its heels enough for the Afghans to take over the fight.

The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”

Comments

[Al in St. Lou]

Geez, what a disgusting POS our TOTUS is!

[bruce]

Does the article come with a romantic, long stemmed rose?

I only wish the rest of use mere mortals could understand the inner workings of His Excellency's Spock-like brain.

Makes one wonder why he never released his college transcripts to show his brilliance?

[Old Trooper]

It will take both Political and Military efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.
However it is not US Politics that are needed. It is Afghan Politics and the Will
of the Afghan People. The Military solution makes the Afghan effort possible until
they can guarantee Their Own Sovereignty and Security.

CENTCOM and ISAF/NATO knew that. Apparently the Boy Wonder in the White House could not figure it out
so the Rube Goldberg/Axlerod Plan emerged. We will be lucky to sustain a stable fledgling Government
there with the time limitation and small amount of assets provided by the Plan. We still have troops
on the IFOR Missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Korea. WE still have Combat Units/Ships/Air Forces in Germany and Italy.

Wheres the big push from the Fool at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to withdraw them and When?
Obama is an Idiot, Advised by Morons that never spent a Day in the Military. I reckon that wraps it up.

[BD57]

The big, wet, sloppy kisses the media gives this guy .... it's hard to keep dinner down.

For our sake, I hope this so-called strategy works.

[Stephen Morgan]

I wonder if the New York times reporter give the Idiot in Chief the courtesy of a reach around? What a joke. The guy is an idiot and 2012 cannot come soon enough...

[mark l.]

i'll wait for woodward.

it will be a literary crucifixion.

[AJ Lynch]

"Moving the bell curve to the left"? WTF does that mean?

[Jeff]

A wise, studious decision, give him credit.

[David R. Graham]

Top-level/visible agenda, two parts: (1) embarrass, demean US military by setting them up for failure, (2) get as many of them killed as possible

Sub-level/meta agenda, one part: use US military to eliminate political competition for World President/Caliph, in this case AQ and Taliban.

These agendas are incompatible but make perfect sense given the intent of the TOTUS clique.

In addition, both levels of the agenda alienate half the coalition that foisted that clique on the WH, namely, the academic/bureaucratic/congressional Communist half (the other being the Mohammedan half, through both finance and fraud).

Thus, the WH occupiers' AF/PAK "strategy" overtly asserts their independence from their academic/bureaucratic/congressional Communist base and covertly asserts their intention of world rule through their Mohammedan support-side, on which they have competition they signaled at West Point their intention eliminate.

Both top-and sub-level agendas are inimical to academic/bureaucratic/congressional Communist agendas. Those people do not want the US military embarrassed or demeaned, much less killed. They know they need the US military to protect themselves from Mohammedans. Pelosi is not eager to wear a burkha. Neither are academic faculties or bureaucrats eager to forego booze, cocaine, marijuana, independence and womanizing, although Mohammedan sotto voce acceptance of sodomy surely is amenable to them. So, they want to harass the US military but not be without its effective protection of their ways of living against Afro-Mohammedan Imperialism. They do not want to be ruled by thugs, street or academic, domestic or foreign.

The WH occupiers and half their political base are on their way to divorce court. This is a profound development, bearing unforeseeable but salient consequences. The WH occupiers calculate that they can do without that base or strong-arm it into submission via their propaganda arms, soon to be nationalized officially, and their "domestic security force" (ACORN, SEIU, etc.). That is why they took the step they did at West Point.

It took a long time for them to triangulate, even quad-angulate, the forces to their satisfaction. There was no dithering, rather, the calculations took time to make, check, recheck, remake, recheck, etc. and finally conclude as reliably decisive.

They have absolute faith in their calculations and absolute insouciance regarding anyone else's wishes.

[Lala]

I'm with you David R. Graham, everything is calculated to deceive.

[David R. Graham]

Lala, yes, but for a two-pointed purpose, which I attempted to describe. Deception is never for it's own sake. It is to hide actual intent and action