While President Obama "dithers" about the War in Afghanistan, our troops are battling the bloodiest month since the War in Afghanistan began. The President has lead the country and the world through an arduous month of indecision about whether to grant General McChrystal's request for a troop surge to turn the tide against an emboldened Al Qaida resurgence. He is failing in his duty as Commander-in-Chief, a role that he is ill-equipped to serve. This is not a criticism of his lack of military experience, but an observation of his personality and lack of leadership.

Some pundits say we should just cut our losses and get out of the quagmire altogether. General McChrystal, himself a terrorist expert with vast experience in the Middle East and a successful track record leading special ops in Iraq for five years, has deemed the situation "winnable," but only if he can get more troops on the ground. He made his request on October 1st. The President’s evasive and non-committal response has revealed a frightening glimpse of the Commander-in-Chief’s leadership style, which is little more than consensus building.

The President’s resistance to making a decision for General McChrystal has played out publicly, for the world stage. This would be embarrassing, if it weren’t for the life and death importance of it all. One can either interpret his actions as pure Chicago power-play hubris, a sort of "you are not the boss of me" maneuver, or as genuine indecision and uncertainty.

Neither of these interpretations bode well for our national interests. Both are demoralizing and dangerous to our troops’ safety and well-being.

It’s not hard to guess what’s behind Obama’s hesitations. He certainly feels the pressure of appeasing his left-wing doves who want the U.S. out of both wars. The last thing he wants to do is upset his donor base by appearing as some kind of “hawk.” This action would jeopardize his ambitious domestic agenda, which is struggling under the weight of a bad economy, continued unemployment and a citizen movement that has grown impatient with Congress.

In this excellent two-part interview by Spiegel, dated October 26th, political commentator Charles Krauthammer deftly answers the question, “What is the Obama doctrine?”:

I would say his vision of the world appears to me to be so naïve that I am not even sure he's able to develop a doctrine. He has a view of the world as regulated by self-enforcing international norms, where the peace is kept by some kind of vague international consensus, something called the international community, which to me is a fiction, acting through obviously inadequate and worthless international agencies. I wouldn't elevate that kind of thinking to a doctrine because I have too much respect for the word doctrine.

On March 27th, President Obama boldly proclaimed, “Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He then proceeded to offer nothing that even resembled a strategy. Now that the situation has become critical, Obama seems unwilling or unable to follow through on the right course of action, either for fear of agitating the political interests of his base, or, at the very least, because he just can’t decide what to do. His lack of command in the midst of something so serious is unsettling.

Forget the fan boy comparisons of Obama to JFK, Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ. President Obama is looking like President Lyndon Johnson during his first months as president in 1964. He was caught between an emerging conflict in Vietnam and his domestic ambitions, called The Great Society program.

For a better understanding of this I refer to H.R. McMaster’s book, “Dereliction of Duty.” McMaster, the author of “Dereliction of Duty,” is an Army officer, West Point graduate, who researched and corrected many myths surrounding the policy failures in Vietnam.

McMaster, who served as a close adviser to General Petraeus, described the situation of LBJ's Vietnam policy as not really a policy at all, but an ongoing pursuit of consensus. (To read a great PBS interview with McMaster, click here).

Johnson avoided making the necessary commitment to either fully engage in the conflict or completely pull out of it. Johnson 's main goal was to keep special interests on both sides of the debate assuaged, so as to avoid open debate and conflict from constituents, which might threaten support for his domestic programs.
 
Don’t assume that McMaster is some embittered military officer pointing the finger of failure at the politicians. He reserves a hefty amount of blame to the military brass that served Johnson, especially Secretary of Defense, McNamara, along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who deliberately sidetracked reports and plans from military leaders on the ground detailing winning strategies that would hasten the end of the war and ensure victory.
 
The book details and cites an abundance of evidence that McNamara placated Johnson’s anxiety and avoidance of decision making by shielding him from such information. Instead McNamara created a policy known as “graduated pressure” or “the middle-course strategy” that allowed Johnson to assure the public that we were not engaged in war, while still allowing limited warfare operations, slowly increasing our troop commitment over time. The lack of commitment to a winning strategy resulted in the worst quagmire and most poorly managed conflict in U.S. history.

Today’s military brass are a different breed, and well versed in McMaster’s work. These leaders want victory and they want it with minimal loss of life. “Mr. President,” I can imagine him saying, “if you give us what we need, we will serve you well. We can win this. We must win this.”
 
On October 28th, 27 days after General McChrystal’s request, the President announced that he is “likely to give him SOME of the troops requested, but not all.”

Meanwhile, the President’s Machiavellian health care reform ambitions are being debated and sorted out, with the customary secrecy and insider trader action typical of Congress. Cap-and-trade will be up for discussion soon. The President proudly signed into law a bill that will give the military a 3% pay raise, without mentioning the hidden rider in the bill that throws a bone to the gay lobby by expanding hate crimes legislation. The troops in harm’s way will be thrilled, I’m sure. Obama’s domestic agenda is marching along smartly.

President Obama lacks the leadership to carry out his most solemn duty as Commander-in-Chief. He keeps his military advisers at arms length, while over-promising a domestic utopia that the public does not want and cannot afford (much like the Great Society programs that never delivered). My fear is that our potential to build on the success we had in Afghanistan in the early days of the conflict will be wasted by Obama’s political ambitions and unwillingness to command.

I would be angry, but I just learned that eight more soldiers will be returning to our nearby army base, Ft. Lewis, in draped coffins. I would be angry at the President’s dereliction of duty, but I am too sad right now for those who carried out their duty honorably, even in spite of a weak commander-in-chief.