While I strongly disagree with most of Charles Krauthammer’s ideology and politics, I must admit that the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist is a brilliant journalist and probably the most influential commentator in our country.
That’s perhaps why I am disappointed at his latest column that appeared this morning in the Washington Post.
As I have pointed out in a previous post, president Obama is faced with an overabundance of advisers and advice when it comes to making what will certainly be one of the most critical decisions of his presidency: How to proceed on the eight-year-old Afghanistan war.
The president is getting such advice, oftentimes very conflicting advice, from his cabinet secretaries, national security agencies, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other generals and brilliant journalists such as Mr. Charles Krauthammer.
In my opinion, the president is proceeding cautiously and responsibly towards making a decision that may commit thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, more American troops to that conflict—many never to return home.
In my opinion, the previous administration had more than seven years, if not to win this war, to change the strategy, commit more troops, etc.
Mr. Krauthammer, however, believes that now that the Democrats are in power, deliberating the next crucial step in this war is a “Young Hamlet’s Agony,” and mocks the commander in chief’s publicly agonizing over the right strategy to win this war “as the world watches.”
Referring to “the genius of democracy…the rotation of power,” he disingenuously asks, “So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?”
Imbedded in his disingenuous question is the answer, too.
By the way, Mr. Krauthammer, the President is not “their,” the Democrats’, commander in chief. He is our commander in chief.
Our commander in chief still believes that we must win the Afghanistan war—I have not heard him say anything differently. Hopefully, the strategy to win that now eight-year-old war will be more successful than the strategy that in fact had been under Bush one of “under-resourcimg” in terms of focus, commitment and human and material resources.
As to Krauthammer’s follow-up question, “Why?” referring to “Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches”, Krauthammer again answers his own question with: “Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don’t commit troops before you decide on a strategy.” I believe that such is the sound and logical sequence of preparing for and conducting warfare, Dr. Krauthammer.
I restate my admiration for Krauthammer as a brilliant journalist and foreign policy expert. But, perhaps—especially after so vigorously supporting our invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war that cost us so much blood and treasure—he should give the national security and military experts a few more days, even weeks, to come up with the sound strategy and the troop levels that we need to achieve success in Afghanistan. Success that evaded Obama’s predecessor for seven long years.
Mr. Krauthammer, the war in Afghanistan is no Shakespearean theater performance; it is real war with real men and women dying every day. It’s no occasion to accuse the commander in chief of “fretting and demurring.”
I believe that the lives that America will continue to sacrifice in our fight in Afghanistan deserve more careful consideration—more “agonizing,” if you will—and more time for such, as necessary.
