President Obama's Decision Not to Decide about Afghanistan

In "The Battle of the Irishmen" (see address for the link), Wretchard discusses differences in opinion about the decision of President Obama to reject all four plans presented to him for resolving the situation in Afghanistan. Andrew Sullivan is thrilled. Some other analysts are not. Read the whole thing and follow the links for some education on this issue. Wretchard reminds us:

. . . Barack Obama is reviewing his own policy. In March 2009 the long time critic of the White House during the Bush administration drew on his insights and an extensive policy review which he commissioned to announce his own Afghan Policy, which can viewed verbatim here.

, , , The spectacle of the Obama taking months to understand what is wrong with his own painstakingly crafted handiwork himself might appear “Presidential” to Andrew Sullivan, but it does raise the question of why after taking months to get it wrong we should have any confidence that Barack Obama should do any better now. . . . Sullivan's conclusion that Obama’s application of “relentless empiricism” has broadened his mind and led even him to think that “the troop question is rather like the public option question” makes you wonder whether there isn’t some fundamental problem of context that is being missed.

Just kidding.

Wretchard also links a critical piece by Dutch-born Gerard Vanderleun. This piece may make you wince, but it's worth reading. One quote reminds us that there is nothing new about Obama's approach in Afghanistan:

Veterans of dysfunctional corporations will recognize the Obama style as the one in which upper management is fond of giving middle management “All the responsibility, none of the authority, and zero resources.” It’s a time-tested recipe for failure and demoralization while maintaining an aloof, “concerned,” and above the fray posture on the part of the CEO. It is what is being done to the US military, day in and day out, in Afghanistan and, as such, works to Obama’s favor as long as it can be done slowly and without alarm.

You might also want to skim through Wretchard's comment thread for thoughts like those in Comment #7:

. . . I saw so much of this when I was at the Pentagon. Present the options and they don’t like any of them. And that’s your fault for not coming up with better options. I call this SFOS – “Search for the Optimum Solution” – and it is both endless and paralyzing. They want something that is perfect, satisfies all the special interests, can’t fail in a manner that is traceable to them, and does not cost any money. Notice how well our space launch development efforts have gone for the past 40 years? SFOS at work! . . .

Mickey Kaus brings up another possibility related to domestic politics. Tigerhawk thinks this approach reflects the presence of lots of lawyers in the White House.

Update: Now he really owns the war in Afghanistan.