Having after long deliberation decided he doesn't like any of the options, the Decider came down strongly for dithering, just to show those Afghans who's boss.

“I’m not saying that we’ll be in a perpetual state of review [!!!], but the time the president has taken so far should signal to people that he will not hesitate to take a hard look at things and question assumptions if things are not moving in the right direction,” a senior White House official said.

The time he's dithered so far. Sends a clear signal. That he will not hesitate. To look at things some more.

If Mr. Karzai “falls short of our expectations, there are a lot of things, in terms of our investment, that we could do,” one official said. “Let’s say he appoints someone to a certain ministry or portfolio, and we just consider that person unacceptable. We’re not going to be forced to deal with that person.”

Well, yeah, we sort of are. Even the NYT called bullshit on that statement.

The situation is what it is, and that's all that it is. Make a call. Jesus.

I must need bifocals. I can't find any opinion pieces raging about the arrogant administration having the cultural insensitivity and megalomaniacal hegemonic intent to impose so-called American values on others, but I'll keep looking.

and this took me all of about five seconds to find. There are many, many other examples.

<link>

“You know that scene in the movie ‘Blazing Saddles,’ when Cleavon Little holds the gun to his own head and threatens to shoot himself?” asked Ronald E. Neumann, a former ambassador to Afghanistan.

I uh…do…I’m somewhat of an...uh... aficionado...uh... regarding that movie…and …uh…he points the gun to his head and says…(unfortunate example Neumann… in my opinion).

I know, it's maddening to wait, wait, wait. Especially after the Bush Administration was making its plans to invade Iraq in the 90's. Why, Bush was "goin' to war" against Iraq in the fall of 2002 already. Give him a few more days ...I'm writing like mad to his White House website! Would you accept a draw-down? ..............................­........ Lynn Redgrave was wonderful in "Shine".

for Jesus to tell him what to do.

"dithering" made popular by Cheney in RW circles.

Well never let facts get in the way of your ideology.

Fact one, Bush was asked for additional troops in Afghanistan and turned down the request. Of course, he has already depleted his choices by upping the ante in Iraq.

Obama has already authorized and deployed over 21,000 additional troops.

Before we send any more troops is it too much to ask that we have an actual PLAN in mind? You know, something more than smoke ‘em out and shoot ‘em dead.

The worst military thinkers in American history – the people who assured us Saddam had WMDs and was working with bin Laden, the people who supported letting bin Laden escape so we could invade Iraq, the people who kept telling us that Arab Spring had come, the people who told us Iraqis would greet us as liberators – think that Barack Obama is going the wrong route and dithering.

Un-f-believable.

Do you , Cheneites ever learn from your mistakes, ever?

The military stretegeroligical brain trust, closely advising the Prez. I'd be willing to accept (!) a draw-down, or a surge, or something. But he's had plenty of time, and our guys are still out there being shot without knowing the plan.

OK, I'll give him a few more days.

Heh.

He appointed a new general, announced a new plan, with great fanfare. Now he's spending another couple of months deciding if he should go forward with his announced plan.

Bush made the right decision with the Iraq surge. More importantly, he made a decision.

Is Obama hoping it will go away if he ignores it?

Good.

Lord.

I swear he's trying to lose this thing in the worst possible way.

. . .the time the president has taken so far should signal to people that he will not hesitate to hesitate

That sounds about the size of it.

At least he's not saying we'll be in a perpetual state of review.

Aw crap! He just said it!

On second thought, maybe he should just consult an Augur. Do we still have those?

I certainly believe he'll follow through on that threat.

how long did it take Bush to make a surge decision ?

The news that Obama has refused to sign off on any of the four major options presented to him in Afghanistan reminds me of why he was elected president. This critical decision - arguably the most critical of his young presidency - is one that will not be rushed the way such decisions often are. His insistence that the civilian branch truly control policy there and that empire not be passively accepted as a fait accompli are real signs of strength in the struggle to recalibrate American foreign policy. Can you imagine Bush ever holding out like this on the military? Or for these reasons:

Administration officials said Wednesday that Obama wants to make it clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended.

The stunning honesty of Eikenberry has undoubtedly concentrated minds on the core pillar of any counter-insurgency strategy: the Karzai government. But, of course, no options have been closed off yet:

The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than McChrystal wants at the outset.

Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and in response to pending decisions on troops levels by some U.S. allies fighting in Afghanistan.

What we are seeing here, I suspect, is what we see everywhere with Obama: a relentless empiricism in pursuit of a particular objective and a willingness to let the process take its time. The very process itself can reveal - not just to Obama, but to everyone - what exactly the precise options are. Instead of engaging in adolescent tests of whether a president is "tough" or "weak", we actually have an adult prepared to allow the various choices in front of us be fully explored. He is, moreover, not taking the decision process outside the public arena. He is allowing it to unfold within the public arena. Others, moreover, are allowed to take the lead: McChrystal, or Netanyahu, or Pelosi, in the case of Af-Pak, Israel-Palestine and health insurance, respectively. Obama encourages the process but hangs back, broadly - and persistently - pursuing certain objectives without tipping his hand on specifics or timing.

So the troop question is rather like the public option question.

Obama's position - almost a year into his presidency - is yet to be revealed. The president waits, prods, allows the parties to reveal their hands, and keeps his final detailed position to himself. By allowing the debate to continue in public, he also tries to get the public more, rather than less, involved. So we too get to show our hand as the debate continues. And the polls show Americans pretty evenly - and understandably - divided on the excruciating and ultimately prudential question of what to do next.

What strikes me about this is the enormous self-confidence this reveals. Here is a young president, prepared to allow himself to be portrayed as "weak" or "dithering" in the slow and meticulous arrival at public policy. He is trusting the reality to help expose what we need to do. He is allowing the debate - however messy and confusing and emotional - to take its time and reveal the real choices in front of us. This is politically risky, of course. Those who treat politics as a contact-sport, whose insistence is on the "game" of who wins which news cycle, or who can spin each moment in a political storm as a harbinger of whatever, will pounce and shriek and try to bounce the president into a decision. And those who believe that what matters in war is charging ahead regardless at all times will also grandstand against the president's insistence on prudence.

But he won't be bounced and his concern seems to be genuinely to do the right and the most sustainable thing. Which is a kind of strength we haven't seen in a president since Reagan.

A.Sulllivan

1. Dithering on a decision that puts tens of thousands of military men and women at great risk - on an issue which they claim much is at stake?

2. Giving the appearance of not dithering but nevertheless undersupporting those military men and women putting them at great risk and guaranteeing the task you are giving them can't get done?

I know - this game can be sometimes tough.