Afghanistan Isn't Obama's War

Dan Senor and Peter Wehner: Afghanistan Is Not ‘Obama’s War’ - WSJ.com: "We do believe, however, that Republicans should resist the reflex that all opposition parties have, which is to oppose the stands of a president of the other party because he is a member of the other party. In this instance, President Obama has acted in a way that advances America's national security interests and its deepest values. Republicans should say so. As things become even more difficult in Central Asia, it's important to keep bad political patterns we have seen before from re-emerging."

I agree. My inclinination to agree with George Will's recent column is not about wanting to hand the President a political defeat. I don't care whose war it is. And Afghanistan is an easy one politically, since everyone professed support for it. So we don't need to engage in finger-pointing. My opinion is based more upon the fact that the scope and duration of effort required to prevail in Afghanistan appears to be much greater than what was/is required in Iraq. I find it exceedingly hard to imagine that the candidate who got his opening by harnessing the anti-war left is going to emerge as the leader who convinces the American public to hang in there for a long, bloody, expensive war in Afghanistan. I find it hard to believe that the candidate that never acknowledges the cost of his policies is going to be willing to set proper expectations for the effort in Afghanistan. If President Obama leads his team to develop a clear and consistent strategy for victory, and he lays out on the table for the American people what it is going to take to win, then I'll consider that I was mistaken, and that we should support the President's desire to fight on in Afghanistan.