You might be 'dithering' over Afghanistan if the WaPo is more decisive

You might be a redneck if your mama can cuss out a cop without taking the cigarette outa her mouth ... and you might be a President dithering endlessly about whether to send needed troops to fight the war in Aghanistan if even a Washington Post columnist says we need more troops there.

David Ignatius says exactly that following his recent trip to Afghanistan, which I might point out President Obama not only hasn't done lately, much less consult with the general in charge there.

So what should Obama do? I think he should add enough troops to continue the mission he endorsed in March to "reverse the Taliban's gains" and improve security in Afghanistan's population centers. I don't know whether the right number is the roughly 40,000 that Gen. Stanley McChrystal has recommended, but it should be the minimum number necessary. The additional troops will come at a steep political price, at home and abroad.

Sir Charles Krauthammer shares an old Soviet joke to characterize Obama's dithering strategy.

WASHINGTON -- Old Soviet joke:

Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev.

"Niki, I'm dying. Don't have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble."

A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: "Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe."

A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: "Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe."

Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: "Prepare three envelopes."

In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu.

It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

Krauthammer also sums up Obama's choices on Afghanistan as being remarkably similar to the right decision that his much-hated predecessor President George W. Bush made on Iraq.

In Iraq, the heavy footprint -- also known as the surge -- dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light footprint did not become evident until more recently when an uneasy stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.

That's where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.

In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.

In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27.

He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes.

The "heavy footprint vs. light footprint" debate is essentially the Pentagon, the generals in charge of our troops and even Defense Sec. Bill Gates vs. "Generals" John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Rich Lowry at National Review calls it the City Mouse, Country Mouse Strategy.

Reading the tea leaves, it appears that defense, state, and the intelligence community has concluded that the Taliban is dangerous and it can't be fought effectively without something like McChrystal's 40,000 troops. The politicos, though, seem to want to turn the process on its head. The original idea was to come up with the strategy and ends first, then decide on what troop levels are necessary. The political aides seemingly want to come up with the most politically palatable troop number — say splitting the difference at 20,000 — and then ask what strategy can be supported with that number. The White House has given the impression of wanting to rig the process against McChrystal, but of failing as the facts — reflected in the positions of defense, et. al — lean the other way.

God save our nation and especially our troops in harm's way while Obama endlessly dithers.

Two MSM "signs" that Sarah Palin is a great candidate for Prez

In the vein of Jeff Foxworthy's signs that "you might be a redneck," you might be a great candidate for President if you're not even running yet but the mainstream media and a pair of leftwingnut wannabe/hasbeen politicians feel obligated to attack you.

Sarah Palin hasn't officially resigned as governor of Alaska yet or begun campaigning for any other political office, much less President, but here's two "signs" from the Washington Post.

Palin Favorability Rating Dips As She Nears Exit, Poll Finds
As Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin prepares for the next stage of her political career, a majority of Americans hold an unfavorable view of her, and there is broad public doubt about her leadership skills and understanding of complex issues, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
(By Jon Cohen and Philip Rucker, The Washington Post)

What Palin Got Wrong About Energy
We invite the Alaska governor to join the reality-based debate.
(By Barbara Boxer and John F. Kerry, The Washington Post)

You don't have to read either story to get the point. The Washington Post-ABC News poll was commissioned and paid for by those two so-called mainstream media outlets to determine what? Whether she's popular or not? You can make a poll say anything depending on how you ask the questions, as in the famous "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Yes or no answer only.

Yes. "Ahah! So you admit you've been beating your wife!"
No. "Well why won't you stop beating your wife?"

And then there's Senator Barbara Boxer (Lunatic-California) and John Kerry, hasbeen senator and presidential candidate and wannabe taken seriously "I coulda been a contender!" inviting Sarah Palin to "join the reality-based debate" on the nation's energy policy. Palin, the governor whose state is energy independent because of the deal she personally negotiated with big oil companies that the "experts" said could never be done, needs to take "reality" advice from Boxer and Kerry? If anybody in the energy debate is out of touch with reality, it ain't Sarah Palin. And it just might be Boxer, whose state has outlawed oil drilling, nuclear power plants and any other kind of energy plants except wind power (at which Boxer is a great source), and Kerry who's never had a clue about anything except having a Ph.D. in "how to marry a rich wife so you don't have to work." You can tell a lot about a person by their enemies. Sarah has great enemies.

Part of the problem, not the solution

Obama, Dodd, Kerry, three leading Democrats who brought us the current economic crisis.

Waking up with an '08 hangover

After all the hoopla of last night's coronation of Obama I, Lord of the Universe, I think it's time for some adult analysis. As usual Charles Krauthammer brings us down to earth with Self-Made Man or Mysterious Stranger?

When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.

Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.

When you compare your candidate to John Kerry and come up short, that's not a good sign.

So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?

The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger -- a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.

The big party's over. God help us all if America wakes up with a hangover and a wedding band.