In a sane world, President Obama’s indecisiveness in fulfilling the request of his Generals for reinforcements to the Afghanistan Theater would draw a cacophony of doubt concerning his capacity to serve as Commander in Chief.  However, in the alternative universe to which our nation has

been subjected with the election of Obama, the Democrats and their media accomplices are heaping praise upon him for his indecisiveness, going as far to contrast his indecisiveness with two opposing visions they have concocted of President Bush as Commander in Chief.

One concocted vision of Bush is that of inaction, where these critics say President Bush supposedly failed to craft a strategy for Afghanistan.  Of course such an accusation is outright false, since the strategy was announced at the time of the invasion and curiously appears very similar, if not identical to that finally settled upon by Obama.  War involves the creation of Grand Strategy taking into account multiple factors, a major one being geopolitical.  Subsequent to the routing of the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, they fled and sought refuge in the sovereign nation of Pakistan beyond the reach of U.S. Military Forces.  Due to Saddam Hussein’s actions in Iraq over a long period of defiance in several areas outlined in the U.S. House and Senate Resolution a strategy was developed for regime change and the democratization of Iraq, realizing it would provide the additional benefit of weeding out Al Qaeda from Pakistan to support those Al Qaeda (Ansar al Islam and leader Abu Mousab al Zarqawi) present in Iraq.  Whether you agree with the strategy or not, it was a bold strategy that history will judge.  The aim of regime change in Iraq was not a Bush creation but that of the Clinton Administration due to the belief by many Democrats that Saddam Hussein was amassing a nuclear capability.  Iraq provided a geopolitical strategy advantage against Al Qaeda and Islamic Fundamentalism as well.  The Democrat’s narrow focus on Afghanistan as the central front of the war on terror (or whatever they are calling it his days) defies the historical record, since throughout history similar war strategies have been enacted.  For instance, during World War II President Roosevelt and his Generals consented to Britain’s strategy of luring and confronting the Axis powers into North Africa, realizing control of North Africa provided strategic ports and access to the Mediterranean.  Today’s Left would have argued the U.S. should not have participated in the European theater or African campaign at all since the Germans, Italians and North Africans didn’t attack the U.S., the Japanese did, surely leading them to deem the war in Europe an illegal war, war for oil, etc.  In the West Point speech Obama criticized “years of inaction in Afghanistan”, which is not only disrespectful to every military member to fight and die in Operation Enduring Freedom, but disingenuous since during those years the main Al Qaeda force existed in Iraq, not Afghanistan or Pakistan.  One only need recall where beheadings were being conducted by Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab al Zarqawi.   Additionally, side by side examination of the casualty numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate as the casualties in Iraq decreased, those in Afghanistan increased, indicating a migration of Al Qaeda fighters from Iraq to Pakistan after their defeat in Iraq.
 
The other concocted vision of Bush is that of having acted too quickly without deliberation, a view peddled by the likes of John Kerry and his ilk.  It is incredible that Kerry would push such a view, when he himself headed a cabal that demanded Bush act faster in the wake of 911.  His criticism continued right up to the point of the actual invasion of Afghanistan, and continued through his campaign in 2004.   In the case of Afghanistan, Kerry’s initial criticism serves as an ironic admission that Bush spent significant time deliberating with his staff and generals discussing strategy before authorizing the operation there.  Regarding Iraq, none other than Bob Woodward confirmed the same careful deliberation by Bush in his book Plan of Attack, “starting in late December 2001, Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq” [emphasis added].  Acted too quickly?  Not so much!
  
The duplicitous Kerry and his partisan Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently issued a report criticizing Bush for sending insufficient forces for the initial Afghanistan invasion, rehashing claims that it resulted in permitting Osama bin Laden to slip away from Tora Bora.  However, research of Kerry’s position at the time finds him expressing a belief the force for the invasion was sufficient:

“There were enough U.S. troops in or near Afghanistan to execute the classic sweep-and-block maneuver required to attack bin Laden and try to prevent his escape. It would have been a dangerous fight across treacherous terrain, and the injection of more U.S. troops and the resulting casualties would have contradicted the risk-averse, 'light footprint’ model formulated by Rumsfeld and Franks. But commanders on the scene and elsewhere in Afghanistan argued that the risks were worth the reward."

Additionally, Kerry’s committee failed to address the 911 Report’s finding that President Clinton had multiple opportunities to have Bin Laden apprehended or killed (See:  911 Commission Report pg 138) nor did the committee address how Obama’s failure to formulate a strategy on Afghanistan until eleven months into his presidency has possibly permitted Osama bin Laden to cross freely into Afghanistan without capture.  To Kerry and the Democrats it seems some lost opportunities regarding bin Laden are worse than others. 

Kerry’s position gymnastics on troop numbers brings to light another major 2004 campaign criticism Kerry foisted upon Bush, that he failed to listen to his Generals.  Kerry claimed that one general, General Shinseki, recommended more troops and Bush failed to accept that recommendation leading directly to a “failed strategy” in Iraq.  Increasingly, analysis of Shinseki’s plan is seen as incorrect since that plan required a force of 500,000 troops, a number deemed excessive by every other General advising President Bush at the time.  The Iraq “surge”, widely credited for winning the war in Iraq, dictated troop levels of only 165,000 at their peak serving to prove the folly in Shinseki’s numbers and Kerry claims.  Never one to let the truth get in the way, Kerry’s criticism that “Bush didn’t listen to Shinseki” continues to this day and is parroted throughout the Democrat Party.  Contrast that Kerry criticism of Bush’s failure to listen to one of many Generals advising him, to Obama’s recent failure to listen to the two most important Generals advising him, Generals Petraeus and McChrystal, on troop levels in Afghanistan.  Instead of support for these Generals, the Democrats have chastised them, even telling them to “shut up and salute."   Most incredibly, in the aftermath of Obama’s West Point speech on the subject the media has yet to pursue questions as to how Obama, the most inexperienced President in military matters in the history of the nation, arrived at 30,000 troops instead of the 40,000 requested by his two top Generals.

The matter as to whether President Obama’s ultimate strategy on Afghanistan has been worth the wait will be settled in its ultimate outcome.  One immediate observation is that Obama’s West Point speech in November  was a mere rehash of his March speech with the addition of a date certain withdrawal, a position from which the Administration is now retreating.   Moreover, both speeches were to a large degree a reflection of the original Bush strategy for Afghanistan and the last Bush strategy to draw down in Iraq and increase forces in Afghanistan.  Obama’s indecision on Afghanistan and his dismal performance in support of his strategy at West Point, characterized by an unmoving speech that lulled many cadets to sleep, has painted him as a weak war President who is more concerned with politics and placing blame than achieving victory.  At this point in his presidency, Obama’s greatest accomplishment is making his predecessor appear as a brilliant wartime President.