We Should Be Grateful That Obama Is "Dithering"
Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of "dithering" on Afghanistan. I found this equally amusing and outrageous.
You see, we, as a country, would be a lot (and I mean a lot) better off right now if Cheney and his boss had done some dithering before invading Iraq. It would have been great if they dithered before starting an unnecessary war based on trumped up evidence. It would have been really great if they dithered enough to better understand the social, religious and political dynamics in the country before the invasion (so they wouldn't have, say, dismissed the entire Iraqi army, creating an insurgency in one rash action). And it would have been really, really great if Bush and Cheney had dithered before deciding not to make any changes while Iraq disintegrated between the time Bush stood in his big-boy flight suit in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner and the 2006 election, when the American people punished the Republicans for Bush's utter failure in Iraq. (I don't consider Bush and Cheney having dithered between 2004 and 2006, because dithering involves thinking about options, something they were too stubborn to do.)
So now, we have one of the men responsible for one of the biggest foreign policy errors in the last 100 years of American history, largely because he didn't think and plan enough, telling the current president: "Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries." No, Mr. Cheney, what hurts our allies and emboldens our adversaries is making idiotic rash decisions and then holding to them, all evidence to the contrary.
Obama's careful consideration of what to do next in Afghanistan and Cheney's junior varsity football coach-like pronouncements on decisiveness reminded me of something that, I think, sometimes gets lost in the public discourse since last November's election. Obama's victory was, of course, a rejection of Bush-Cheney's failed economic and foreign policies of the previous eight years. But it was more than that, I think. It seems that one of Obama's main draws was that he was smart, competent and thoughtful. After eight years of a president who invaded a country without fully realizing that there were three different kinds of Muslims living there (who didn't really like each other), and who presided over an incompetent government that was revealed to be so to everyone after Hurricane Katrina (with Bush's never-to-be-lived-down praising of the former International Arabian Horse Association judges and stewards commissioner he put in charge of FEMA), the American people wanted someone in the White House who was up for the job.
Obama's election is often painted in ideological terms, but it was equally about competence and thoughtfulness. It was about electing a guy to run the country who would collect evidence, listen to people who know what they're talking about, and then make a sound decision. In a bitterly divided, red state-blue state, conservative-liberal country like ours, you don't win 365 electoral votes (and states like North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana) on ideology alone. Americans voted for Obama because they thought he would make sounder decisions than the guy who was in the White House at the time (and the guy from that party running this time around on a similar platform).
The problem in Afghanistan is not an easy one to solve. The country is known as the "graveyard of empires" for a reason. Foreign powers have not done well trying to impose their will on Afghanistan. Just ask the Russians, who failed only 30 years ago. And when Obama took office, Afghanistan had been neglected by the Bush administration for years while resources were diverted to Bush's folly in Iraq. There are no easy answers. There might not be any good answers. There might only be the least bad option. And it's clear, despite Cheney's childish outbursts (he's like an Old Faithful of silly pronouncements), that Obama gets all this. Whatever Obama decides to do, the one thing that most Americans want is that he considers all options carefully before making any major commitments of the lives of American soldiers (and their families) and of the billions of dollars it would cost to send more troops (money we desperately need at home).
One look at the two competing Afghanistan articles in the Op-Ed section of today's New York Times offers a clue of how complex the issue is. Nicholas Kristof argues in his column that in the post-World War II era, the United States has underestimated the strength of nationalism in numerous cases, from Vietnam to Latin American, with the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan being particularly ardent in defending their sovereignty. Inches away, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot uses a case study of one Marine regiment's success in restoring order to a village in the Helmand River Valley to assert that more U.S. troops are needed to replicate the operation in other places in the country. Neither argument is unreasonable or straight-out ridiculous (like, say, claiming that health care reform will lead to death panels, socialism and President Obama herding everyone into FEMA camps), even if most of us lean towards one point of view more than the other (count me in Kristof's corner).
The point is that Kristof and Booth offer two plausible, rational courses of action, and any competent decision-maker would carefully study and consider both proposals (and others) before sending 40,000 more Americans into harm's way (many of whom have already endured multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan). That isn't dithering, that's being a leader, a role that Cheney has demonstrated he is not very good at fulfilling (something with which retired general Paul Eaton apparently agrees).
The November election unquestionably gave Obama a mandate to carry out certain policies (something I wrote about last month), but it equally signaled that the American people want the president to make smart, reasoned decisions, and not to charge blindly down ideologically charted pathways. So not only is Obama right for dithering, but it is exactly what he was elected to do. To charge in recklessly like Cheney wants him to would be to engage in the very behavior that got Cheney's party thrown out of power in the last two major elections (2006 and 2008).
What if Bush and Cheney had dithered before invading Iraq? What if they had dithered before making the series of post-invasion horrendous decisions that doomed the first years of the occupation? Think about the thousands of dead soldiers (and their families), the hundreds of thousands of troops on multiple deployments (and their families) and the billions of dollars wasted in Iraq, all because Bush and Cheney didn't dither.
Thanks to Cheney, "dither" has taken on a new connotation for me. A word, once viewed as a negative, now sounds like a positive. Congrats to the former vice president. I guess you can say he finally accomplished something.
Meanwhile, I hope the president dithers as long as necessary to make the right decision on how to handle Afghanistan. I'm hoping that he starts the process of extricating us from a no-win situation, but no matter which option he chooses, at least we can all be confident that the decision will be a thoughtful one. Unlike the usual method employed by his predecessor.
Michael Brenner: Obama -- Really the Afghanistan "Decider"?
A President who misleads on a question of war and peace is continuing his predecessor's practice. The alternative is just as harrowing: the Pentagon is preempting Presidential prerogatives.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let's be blunt. Bush & Cheney have lost four wars in the Middle East. They lost Afghanistan, after winning in the spring of 2002. They lost in Iraq, because nothing has been accomplished. As soon as we leave, our lasting presence will disappear likie pulling ones finger out of a bowl of soup. We lost in Lebanon, and the Israelis made it official with the Winograd Report. In diplomatic language, none of their primary goals for starting the war were accomplished. Even Foreign Minister Livni called for Olmert to resign. And we are losing the war on terrorism everywhere around the planet. Our own national intelligence assessment says that Al Quaida is stronger than ever.
Most Americans do not recognize the reality of our four-fold failure. But the rest of the world does. And our creditors have made us pay dearly by hammering the dollar. More than anything else, this economic crisis is recognition that American has thrown its resources away on stupid adventures in fantasy. Even our Israeli client has thumbed its nose at us and told us to get lost with our peace overtures.
Meanwhile, Limbaugh hopes the country fails!
Kudos to the MSM for creating and perpetuating the war on terror.Khalid Sheik Mohammad was the master-mind of 9/11 and the 19 hijackers are dead so who are we so afraid of?America got duped that a spectacular one time attack meant we had to wage endless war against a few unseen and therefor unbeatable enemies.This has been a tremendous waste of lives ,money,and prestige.
Imperial hubris.
We should just be grateful for Obama, period.
"You see, we, as a country, would be a lot (and I mean a lot) better off right now if Cheney and his boss had done some dithering before invading Iraq."
To this sentiment, I would add: ..better off right now if we had not had a military capable of invading Iraq.
I voted for Obama. But as others have suggested, he does seem to dither too long. At some point, leadership, taking a stand must be a priority. Not crazy about his stimulus package, still not sure where he really stands on Health Reform, unsure about Afghanistan. Can you imagine Alan Grayson in the White House? I don't think dithering would be a problem there. And I say that as a good thing as I believe he is a genuine Progressive, not just someone who makes a helluva speech.
President Obama is so much more than someone who makes a "helluva speech." If you don't realize that, then maybe it says more about you than him.
Here are two unavoidable facts:
Invading Iraq decimated our ability to fight theTaliban and Al Queda, and to find Bin Laden (i.e. address those that actually attacked us)
Invading Iraq empowered Iran, pushing them closer to nuclear war capability.
Dick Cheney specifically, and repeatedly lied about the intelligence leading to the Iraq war.
Dick Cheney personally became rich by orchestrating the Iraq war.
The reader/poster "Schaef" seems to believe that Iraq happened in a vacuum.
If they have dithered some more, they would have seen the bad shape Washington is in financially to be able to wage any war and they would have also seen the day that China has in one brilliant stroke, now probably became the US's most influential external lobby by making us owe them globs of money for waging those wars. There are many more things they could've seen but I guess it all just gives them a bad headache. Incompetence is really being too complimentary for these fools.
The only way to defeat Bin Laden is to act contrary to his "drain and contain" philosophy of combating the US super power. We're playing right into his hands.
Careful deliberations are fine, especially in such an important situation. However, like it or not, there is a time frame factor. There is a point, a threshold where, once crossed, deliberations become dithering. It's all about perceptions, remember? If Obama takes too long, he looks weak, and so does America. Obama's critics will criticize, his supporters will get nervous and defensive, and our common enemies will take heart.
Obama said Afghanistan is the "must win" war. Has he changed his mind? Either "poop" or get off the pot. Decide to do whatever is necessary to prevail, or call it a day, withdraw, and get ready for whatever follows.
Bush and Cheney "dithered" for eight months before Obama ordered more troops into Afghanistan in March, it was their plan and they let it set on the table that long. It takes a major hypocrite to say what Cheney is saying now, but then that is not the worst of his character traits.
Afghanistan was all about going after the perpitrators of 9/11...had we stayed the course there instead of getting off track with Iraq we would'nt even be having this discussion!
Iraq was a seperate issue that alsp had to be faced. Choosing one over the other also had its problems. There were compelling reasons to return to Iraq just as there were good reasons to go to Afghanistan.
I wish neither of these interventions were necessary, but they were.
Agreed, but I wish Obama would stop dithering about fixing the economy, getting Americans back to work, bringing our troops home and the public option for health care! It seems like he is more talk than action. When is he going to deliver his campaign promises?
It's a lot easier to promise than to deliver. He should have known that (and may have) and so should have his supporters. In every presidential election , hope will bow to reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have hope, it just means we should be more realistic. The world is a very complicated place.
There is nothing to dither about in Afghanistan. The only question is how fast can we pull our troops out of this ridiculous war.
It all comes down to money the Taliban is offering drug money to Afghan Police is it worth getting into a price war with the Taliban? The kicker is do we want to have our vets come home from Afghanistan as drug addicts this is Vietnam all over a useless war that has no good ending i only hope the Pakistan Army eliminates the Taliban and Al-Qiada in Waristan and we can bring our troops home. By them taking them on in Pakistan the violence should go down in Afghanistan if the Taliban join forces!
cheney could not afford to dither because if someone had taken the time to examine the lies Bush was propagating, he would not have been allowed to invade Iraq and Cheney could not have mad a bundle for Halliburton.
This article places far too much emphasis on the “compared to Bush/Cheney” formula. It’s time to move past that and gauge the President as the President. He inherited a gigantic cluster-f**k created by the preceding administration. We get it. But the tendency to justify every action (or inaction as the case may be) by highlighting over and over the evils of the Cheney administration is no longer a worthwhile exercise. The campaign is over, Mr. Bard. Obama won. It’s now time for him to act, and to act in the manner he promised during his historic campaign.
And whether it’s coming out of Cheney’s mouth or not, “dither” is not a positive. He’s not incorrect in saying that Obama is vacillating, is he? Let’s stop looking for new ways to praise everything Obama does and focus on the course that both you and I know to be the only correct one. There is nothing to think about or “dither’ upon. We must begin a draw down of troops with a goal at complete removal. That is the only way we can show the world that we are not arrogant control freaks and that we’re willing to respect the right of sovereign nations to handle their own problems. That and only that will make us safer.
Perhaps Obama is doing something the previous administration was afraid or incapable of doing.... Think!
What is there to think about?
At least the previous administration (I am not republican) wasn't afraid to act. Obama said Afghanistan is the "must win" war-did he not? Has he changed his mind? He hand picked McChrystal and implemented a strategy. Whay gives? I know this is tough (I wouldn't want to have to make these decisions) but Obama wanted to be president. That's another name for Commander-in-Chief. So command, already!
Disagree. The comparison is valid becaue Cheney/Bush push us in two war theaters without much reflection and justification and Obama is being prudent in deciding the best way forward, not dithering.
The only prudent decision to be made is abundantly clear and requires no further deliberation. He should be praised for making the right decision, not taking time to decide.
Do you really believe that? Ever ask yourself if Clinton, Albright, and Burger had had the guts to take bin Laden when they had the chance (well before 9/11) that ALL of this might have been avoided in the first place?
It's so easy to play the blame game when you are not responsible for the safety and security of this country.
So its unanimous then. Everyone who is sure they know what he should do and when he should do it, agree that his not doing it when they want him to is dithering!
Well said.
The excuse is now a cliché.
Time to move on.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
