There now seems to be some agreement amongst America's Afghan or foreign policy experts that Obama is pursuing the least worst path. It's significant that Robert Kagan, probably the right's most eminent foreign policy intellectual, today comes down very strongly on the president's side:
It seems to me that Obama deserves even more credit for courage than Bush did, for he has risked much more. By the time Bush decided to support the surge in Iraq in early 2007, his presidency was over and discredited, brought down in large part by his own disastrous decision not to send the right number of troops in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006. Obama has had to make this decision with most of his presidency still ahead of him. Bush had nothing to lose. Obama could lose everything.
Kagan isn't bothered by the July 2011 deadline, suggesting that it will in practice be flexible:
If we and our Afghan and allied partners are succeeding at that point, the timing may make sense. If we aren’t, it won’t. It will not be any easier for Obama to embrace defeat in 18 months than it is today.
The angriest and most persistent brickbats are coming from Obama's left. As I've said before, in pure political terms, that may be no bad thing. Early signs are that this speech is indeed giving him momentum.
Comments