UPDATED: Leadership

UPDATE:
Apparently, the president figured that the best way to "do that [discuss the recent economic news]" was to give a last minute, barely audible, Rose Garden presser in which his main theme revolved around bashing the Republicans as still responsible for whatever goes wrong under his watch.  Good job attempt at leading Sir!

Original Post:
We are leaderless, and that's the biggest reason for a major revolt at the polls this November (emphasis mine).

'President Obama was largely invisible to the public, taking in 10 days of R&R in the posh Chilmark section of Martha’s Vineyard. When he re-emerges to the public on Sunday, he will be kicking off a series of high profile events that have little to do with the issue foremost on Americans’ minds: jobs. On Sunday the president will travel to New Orleans to commemorate the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. On Tuesday he will deliver only his second Oval Office address, discussing the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq. On Wednesday and Thursday, he and his administration will focus on kick-starting peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“We know he needs to be out there to talk about the economy next week,” a White House official told ABC News. “We haven’t yet figured out the way he’s going to do that.”'

Updates: Obama's War

Update 1: The most recent Gallup poll shows support for Obama's handling of Afghanistan at 35%, and it's really not surprising. Tonight is the third strategy address the President has made (the first was when he was a candidate). Each time, he has: 1. blamed Bush (fair enough the first time or so, but old once you've been in charge for awhile) and 2. tried for something new, claiming it was a restatement of the same strategy. Tonight, he spent the first eleven minutes giving a short synopsis of the history of our involvement since September 11, 2001, the obligatory swipe at the Bush Administration, and a defense of the time the review took (stating that the troop request was not slated until 2010). Obama stated twice that he believes our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that new attacks are being plotted from the border region with Pakistan. He then went on to state that we must strengthen Afghanistan and Pakistan, and prevent Pakistan's fall.

He gave three ways to pursue the new strategy in just 18 months: 1. break the hold of the Taliban in certain regions; secure civilian population centers; increase training of Afghan forces. He believes that we'll be able to then begin withdrawal in July 2011 (this is a purely bogus date - if he truly intends to withdraw 'responsibly,' and only if the on-ground conditions are 'right,' he can not promise this date). 2. Improved civilian and political centers by combating corruption and helping with agricultural development. 3. We will act in Afghanistan with the knowledge that we must prevent the spread of the Taliban further into Pakistan. (One wonders how we do this without moving into Pakistan - something we would need far more than 100K troops for). "We can not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intention is clear." (Sounds a great deal like the Bush doctrine of preemption, laid out at West Point in 2002, to me).

He did give a decent explanation of why he doesn't want to commit to a long-term, nation-building program, leaning on the 'it's not in our national interests' argument, but it's hard to see how that fits in with his statements a few minutes earlier that we owe it to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan to secure them from the Taliban. He then sequed into a statement that an open-ended troop commitment would be too difficult economically (true enough), and that he wants to 'build' our nation (how?). He is clearly committed to extending the idea of a war strategy into all kinds of areas (getting rid of nuclear weapons, setting an example by stopping torture, etc.). Much of these areas have little to do with his Afghanistan policy, and did not add to the speech; rather they detracted from the details of the strategy (of which there was none given barring the troop number and the July 2011 date).

Published earlier:
As all now know, the President will be addressing the nation shortly on his new - new strategy on Afghanistan. The President plans to announce that he will be sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan on an accelerated deployment schedule beginning this month, bringing the total US commitment to just over 100,000 troops. Somehow, he also intends to squeeze blood from a stone, and get the Europeans, who have steadfastly refused his requests to date (barring the additional 500 approved by the UK this week), to make up some of the difference between the 30,000 and the 44,000 requested by Gen. McChrystal. The NPR live blog from West Point can be followed here, and live streaming is here. HuffPo states that while the President won't pick a particular exit date, he plans to state the commitment will not be 'open-ended.' In the press conference with Gibbs today, vague statements about a draw-down within three years ("well before the end" of the President's "first term") were made.

John Kerry Serving at the Pleasure of His Own Ego

Sen. Kerry is now advocating that President Obama take a good deal of time in deciding whether or not to resource Gen. McChrystal's request for additional troops. McChrystal's analysis of the situation on the ground is fully backed by Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Mullen, who are dealing directly with the mission that was given to them by the President this year. Kerry seems to blame the military leadership for being so bold as to request the resources necessary to fill that mission. Morning Edition reported today on Kerry's 'helpful' suggestion to listen to those ready to challenge 'the Generals,' calling the military leadership "... a lot of yes people who are there to serve at the pleasure of the wrong choice."

Besides being thoroughly insulting to the professional military, Kerry's new position is in direct contrast to the one he held up until a couple of months ago. Apparently calling for something, and being responsible for sourcing it, are two very different things to the Senator.

UPDATES: Is Gen. McChrystal Being Muzzled?

UPDATE 1: Defense Secretary Gates has said that he will formally receive Gen. McChrystal's troop request by the end of the week, but that the report will stop there until the President and his staff are 'ready to consider it.' Apparently, doing more than one thing at a time only goes so far. Meanwhile, Gen. McChrystal has stated that there is no rift between he and the White House, and that he welcomes the debate. He also warns that taking too long to decide on the troop request will, in essence, be a decision to lose any hope of defeating the Taliban. Hopefully, we'll have a decision in two weeks, after the UN and G20 hoopla are over, but I'm not holding my breath.

From Gen. McChrystal's report to the President:

'"The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted. Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans in both their government and the international community that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents. Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.

"Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or 'doubling down' on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate."'

The problem may be that the President is too boxed in by promises on Afghanistan, health care, stimulus-spending, and most especially, his party supporters, too develop a coherent and winning strategy.

'Obama, who issued a new war strategy for Afghanistan just six months ago, has signaled he will change it again.

"One of the things that I'm absolutely clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make the determinations about resources," he said last week. "You don't make determinations about resources, and certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle, without having absolute clarity about what the strategy's going to be."

Anthony Cordesman, a Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst who went to Afghanistan, has rebuked the White House for vetoing McChrystal's request before it even arrives.

"Quite frankly, it would probably be just as well if people in the National Security Council and the White House made their judgments after they get the assessment they need rather than try to resource constrain an assessment in a way that can lose the war," he told reporters.'

Compare this thinking with the 'new' strategy on Afghanistan issued in March:

'So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.'

There's just no way to do (and pay for) it all. Gen. McChrystal is probably feeling like he has a target painted on his back right about now, and that's the wrong approach. He was given a mission (albeit a vague and self-contradictory one), and has given his professional assessment as to the best way to meet that mission successfully. Now political game-playing seems to be cutting his legs out from under him. When commentators wonder if Afghanistan is the new Vietnam, they may be right, but not in the way they're thinking. Our involvement in Vietnam would have been far more successful, if Congress had not constantly tampered with the mission, and the means by which that mission was resourced and fulfilled. If the same tendency toward 'mission-creep' grips this Congress and White House, Afghanistan will indeed resemble Vietnam. The President needs to clearly state his mission objectives for Afghanistan, properly resource those objectives per the recommendations of the professional tasked with carrying them out, and then let those professional succeed. Anything less is disingenuous.