A Dithering President?

Is Obama “dithering” and “waffling” when it comes to his policy on Afghanistan? Former Vice President Dick Cheney sure thinks so. In his harshest critique yet of the new administration, Cheney complained that Obama’s indecision will “hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries”.

In recent weeks, much hype has surfaced around the issue of Afghanistan and what course of action President Obama should ultimately pursue. On one hand, Obama could heed the advice of his general on the ground, Stanley A. McChrystal who recently requested 40,000 additional troops. The reasoning is the same we have been hearing since the early days of the presidential primaries in 2007: We need to end the war in Iraq and transition troops to win the war in Afghanistan. The opposing viewpoint, somewhat surprisingly, comes from Vice President Joe Biden, who prefers to maintain troops at their current levels and instead, focus on eliminating remnants of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.



Both arguments have their merits and Obama would be hard-pressed to ignore the advice of his VP, who has amassed quite the Rolodex of foreign leaders from his years as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. However, even Biden has recognized that Obama is the one who wields the power to make the final decision and could go either way.

Two developments in the last few days, in my opinion at least, will shift Obama’s thinking closer to that of the McChrystal camp. First, Western leaders, namely Biden’s successor at Foreign Relations, Senator John Kerry, convinced Afghan President Hamid Karzai to participate in a run-off election. Karzai had received over 50 percent of the vote in last August’s presidential election but after reports of systemic fraud, UN monitors determined that he did not actually reach the 50 percent threshold, thus necessitating a run-off election. Karzai’s compliance with new elections will lead to a more legitimate Afghan government, which will be needed for the country to succeed in the long run.

Second, just three days ago, defense ministers of NATO countries collectively pledged their support for McChrystal’s plan to augment troop levels. This action is a major boon for McChrystal and a form of global pressure directed straight at Obama.

So is Obama “dithering” and “waffling”? In his speech, Cheney did not stop at Afghanistan – he criticized Obama’s overall foreign policy, including the recent decision to replace George W. Bush’s Eastern European missile defense plan, the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and the administration’s approach to Iran, Iraq, and the Middle East.

I think Cheney is the one waffling, coming up with outrageous statements simply to remain in the spotlight. There is an unspoken rule about former Presidents and Vice Presidents not criticizing one another. George W. Bush, who most likely shares Cheney’s views, seems to understand this rule loud and clear. If anything, Cheney is bolstering Obama by providing fodder for the White House Press Office. In fact, Biden and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Cheney with equal severity.

As for Obama, his foreign policy is not driven by indecision, but rather by careful analysis. Upon assuming office, Obama commissioned his own review of the situation in Afghanistan, is considering all alternatives as to how to best move forward, and will shortly announce his decision. Obama’s change of approach in regards to Afghanistan and the Eastern European missile defense system is not merely an attempt to deviate from Bush's presidency, but to recognize the realities of a changed world since Bush left office nine months ago. In those nine months, Obama has repositioned America as a global leader by closing Guantanamo, taking a holistic approach to areas like Afghanistan and Iran, and regaining the trust of people worldwide.

Before Cheney makes another remark about Obama’s performance, he should know that the White House will most certainly not “dither” in offering a powerful rebuke.