Getting it Right? A Half-Hearted Afghanistan Strategy Revisited

Now I am not a general or even a military historian, but it doesn't seem to me that it makes any sense to let your enemy know when you are coming and when you plan to leave. All they should need to know is what you plan to do: win. And our troops on the ground need to have the confidence that these decisions and timelines are based on sound military principles rather than political calculation.

Last night, President Obama had a golden opportunity to borrow a line from my father -- one that would have brought the house down and instilled more confidence in the plan he appeared half-heartedly to support. All he had to do was announce: "We win -- they lose." But rather, the president's message and demeanor presented more of a détente approach to American foreign policy, in a speech where he never once made victory our goal.

Gen. David Petraeus, leader of the Iraq surge and now head of U.S. Central Command, acknowledged after President Obama's speech that there was "tension" between the desire to win the conflict and the desire to pull out quickly. Those desires are both real and understandable, but no one knows better than Gen. Petraeus how much meeting both can sometimes prove impossible.

Moving forward, the American people, Afghan President Karzai, and our NATO allies must now rise to the task before us. But even as I move to follow my president, I can only hope that it is this pattern, rather than political timelines, which he follows in the next two years.

To the men and women who now bravely go to serve, you have my deepest thanks, hopes, and prayers. You are the soul of this country, and your service will not go unmarked.