2
2
1
Thus, Rasmussen has a long record of kowtowing to what he
perceives to be the power center in Washington. And his perception now? Apparently it is that the real power ain't in the White
House this time; it's in the Pentagon.
As NATO Secretary General Rasmussen was announcing what he called plans to send "substantially more forces" to Afghanistan, President Obama, in Beijing, struck a defensive tone in telling CBS News, "I think that Gen. McChrystal shares the same goal I do."
Wait a second; he thinks?
Granted that the President has a lot on his plate and, in my view, is to be applauded for the deliberate pace he has set on making big decisions on Afghanistan, he is projecting the image of a Mr. Milquetoast--a highly educated, well-spoken wuss on many key issues. This is not only damaging on the international scene; it gives the U.S. military and domestic political rivals the idea that he is a slow-moving lightweight, who can be either easily pushed around or evaded when it comes to issues on which they are deeply engaged--like Afghanistan.
Even regarding Rasmussen himself, President Obama was warned
about the former Danish prime minister's subservience to Bush and the neo-cons,
and yet did not lift a finger to prevent Rasmussen from becoming NATO Secretary
General.
Must stunning is Obama's caving in on the issue of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian areas. In a plaintive, powerless tone, Obama told Fox News on Nov. 18: "Well, there is no doubt that I haven't been able to stop the settlements."
As for his domestic priority of health care, he has not been
heard to protest as the draft legislation falls far short of his own
expectations.
Kid Gloves for Karzai
In the same acquiescent tone, Obama's senior policy people
are telling the Washington Post that
U.S. officials, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on down, have now
"turned on the charm" with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. According to the Post, the administration has decided that its tough approach to
Karzai was counterproductive, "fueling stress and anger in a beleaguered,
conspiracy-minded leader whom the U.S. government needs as a partner."
The Post article says that criticism of the earlier approach is most pronounced among senior U.S. military leaders, who complain about the failure of the State Department to "fix" Karzai's government. Sensitive to that kind of charge, Secretary Clinton is said to have urged Karzai "to use merit, not cronyism, as a criteria (sic) for filling cabinet posts," according to the Post. That should be enough to take care of that problem, don't you suppose?
This may be part of what the Post's hard-right columnist, Michael Gerson had in mind in his
Friday op-ed, titled "Obama the Undecider," as Gerson criticized Washington's
"dysfunctional Afghan decision-making process." More to the point, Gerson reported that Gen. McChrystal is
feeling "stabbed in the back" by the leak of two classified messages from U.S.
Ambassador to Afghanistan (and former Army general) Karl Eikenberry, arguing
against troop increases.
Gerson, actually, makes a valid point in summing up Obama's dilemma. Depending on his ultimate decision, the president "will be vulnerable to charges of buckling to military pressure or disregarding the advice of his commanders."
The sooner President Obama accepts that there is no win-win
solution to his dilemma, the better.
Right-wing pressure, including from Robert Gates, the defense secretary Obama kept on from the Bush administration, will not abate. At a press conference yesterday, Gates, who reportedly favors sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan made it seem like a foregone conclusion that the President will opt (has opted?) to escalate. He said:
""I anticipate that as soon as the president
makes his decision, we can probably begin flowing some forces pretty quickly
after that."
Adm. Mullen was even more specific:
