Afghanistan Strategy Session

Today’s lead article in the New York Times is titled, “Obama Afghanistan Plan Narrows U.S. War Goals.” It describes the internal debate in the Obama administration prior to the decision about sending 4,000 new advisors.

This article is different from the normal news-related article you read in the New York Times. It discusses, in intricate detail, how President Obama reached his recent decision on Afghanistan.

Though it’s some what disturbing as a breach of security regarding confidential matters, it does raise one concern about the Obama administration. President Obama often reaches a compromise in his decision-making process rather than choosing one position or the other.

This decision split the difference between commanders in the field asking for a significant additional increase in combat troops and caution by officials such as Vice President Biden warning about opposition to the plan in Congress. President Obama responded by choosing to send additional personnel for training purposes only and narrowing our goals in the region to defeating Al Qaeda, with specific benchmarks, instead of nation-building or creating another democracy like we tried to do in Iraq.

I must admit, however, it’s refreshing to see how President Obama listens to everyone in the room and incorporates what he sees as the best elements in their proposals. And it’s good to see a President who thinks for himself and comes up with a new formulation based on the advice he gets. Sometimes, however, we’ll need to do more than split the difference, and I’m waiting for President Obama to show strong leadership in other fields, such as healthcare, energy and education. His current budget proposal seems like a great start in that effort, and I hope he doesn’t get pushed around by “loud” dissenters such as the Republicans in Congress.