Finally, A Real Commander in Chief!

First, the good news:

The capture of senior Afghan Taliban leaders in Pakistan represents the culmination of months of pressure by the Obama administration on Pakistan's powerful security forces to side with the United States as its troops wage war in Afghanistan, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials

A new level of cooperation includes Pakistani permission late last month for U.S. intelligence officials to station personnel and technology in this pulsating megacity, officials said. Intercepted real-time communications handed over to Pakistani intelligence officials have led to the arrests in recent days of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Afghan Taliban's No. 2 commander, and two of the group's "shadow" governors for northern Afghanistan.

But wait, there's more good news!

After a fierce gunfight, U.S. Marines seized a strongly defended compound Friday that appears to have been a Taliban headquarters — complete with photos of fighters posing with their weapons, dozens of Taliban-issued ID cards and graduation diplomas from a training camp in Pakistan.

In short, the Obama Administration is kicking the Talibans' pathetic asses from here to Kabul. Absolutely. Kicking. Their. Pathetic. Asses. This is unequivocally awesome, and of course the Obama Administration should be given tremendous credit for effectively fighting the war on terror (not that Republicans will give them any credit, of course). It's truly impressive.

So what's the bad news? Simple: that the successes we're seeing today against the Taliban and Al Qaeda could - and should - have happened years ago. Instead, the Bush Administration let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. Instead, the Bush Administration foolishly diverted resources from the war on terror to the war on Saddam, a scumbag no question, but somebody who had no connection to Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, or the 9/11 attackers. Instead, the Bush Administration needlessly alienated public opinion in places like Pakistan, making it more difficult to effectively do what the Obama Administration is now doing. In other words, the Republicans are all macho talk while Obama is all serious action. Finally, after 8 years of the chickenhawks and macho "mission accomplished" b.s., we've got a real commander in chief who "talks softly and carries a big stick." I know which one I prefer, how about you?

Obama's "Goldilocks strategy" in Afghanistan

I generally agree with this analysis by E.J. Dionne, that Obama's "surge-and-wind-down strategy is both gutsy and politically risky, a view that defies depictions of Tuesday's address as a contrived effort to please everyone." I also agree that Obama has basically settled on a "Goldilocks strategy: neither too hawkish nor too dovish, but just right." As far as which of three Democratic "camps" I'm in - "a small number of hawks who agree with his decision; a large number of doves who oppose it; and a sizable group uneasy with Obama's choice but respectful of how and why he made it" - I'm mostly in the third (uneasy but respectful), but I can see the hawks' and doves' perspectives as well. As

In many ways, my position on President Obama's Afghanistan policy is, as E.J. Dionne writes, "God, I hope he's right." But it's more than that. Basically, I am in strong agreement with Elaine in Roanoke, who writes that "Afghanistan and September 11 are as connected as Japan and December 7, 1941's attack on Pearl Harbor are." I also strongly agree with Elaine in Roanoke's closing paragraphs:

Let's all look at what we would be creating if we simply packed up and said, "We're going home."

Bin Laden and al Qaeda would claim that they has "defeated" both superpowers who emerged after World War II, first the Soviet Union and now the United States. They would then embolden the absolute worst among Islamic extremists. It would be obvious to them that no one can stop whatever they wanted to stir up, not just in the United States but also in Europe and in moderate Islamic nations.

Pakistan - with its nuclear arsenal - would likely be next on the list for these terrorists. Try to imagine a world in which al Qaeda joins the "nuclear club" by taking control of Pakistan. That prospect would make the Cold War look like a cakewalk.

Pakistan created the Taliban monster at one time to provide fighters for their conflict with India. Now, they and the rest of the world have to live with this Frankenstein's monster and its cohorts in al Qaeda.

I, for one, am willing to trust this president to lead the nation as commander in chief. He's not intellectually challenged like his predecessor. He's very unlikely to get his ego wrapped up in this war, unlike the super egos in the last administration. He certainly knows more about what needs to be done in Afghanistan than I.

This time I have to break with the Democratic left. These madmen need to be stopped. President Obama has given us a strategy that has definite goals, clear ways to judge how successful the conflict is going, and an exit strategy. That's all I was looking for.

That's basically all I was looking for too (although I'd also like to clarify how we're going to pay for all this). What about you?

For Anyone Who's Surprised By Obama's Afghanistan Surge

This video is from September 9, 2008, or two months before the 2008 presidential election in which Barack Obama won a landslide victory. Note to anyone who's "surprised" or "disappointed" at President Obama's Afghanistan surge: this is not news, this is something Obama talked about throughout the 2008 campaign. Did you miss this or were you thinking that Obama would break his promises once he got elected? Just curious.