The pie chart of an American military operation is dominated by honor and excellence, with a sliver of incompetence and abuse. The sliver can make a lot of news. In these cases, the president's role is to serve the interests of the nation and the troops under his command. If those interests are best secured by an apology, there is no dishonor in it.The Taliban have naturally exploited America's trash dump blunder. Domestic critics of President Obama, and opponents of the Afghan War, have both attempted to do the same. Newt Gingrich, with typical enraged incoherence, occupied both camps. He charged that Obama, by his apology, had "surrendered" -- and then proceeded to urge American surrender. "If Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn't feel like apologizing," said Gingrich, "then we should say goodbye and good luck, we don't need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn't care."
Gingrich would shape American grand strategy in a fit of personal pique with a foreign leader. It is the type of Republican foreign policy attack that makes Obama look like Metternich in comparison.
More serious critics of the war contend that the Afghan reaction to the Quran-burning incident -- including the treacherous murder of two American officers -- indicates a doomed counterinsurgency campaign. Afghan hearts and minds, they argue, are beyond winning.
The frustration is understandable, but the case is overstated. The current crisis, says Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, is "far more than a blip, but less than a catastrophe." According to O'Hanlon, the United Sates is consistently more popular in Afghanistan than elsewhere in the Islamic world. Betrayal by Afghan soldiers and officials is disturbing and damaging but not generalized or growing. Many Afghans fear a hurried American departure far more than they resent America's presence. And Karzai's reaction to the Quran incident has been measured, particularly when compared to past tantrums.