Obama on Afghanistan: first impressions

In terms of raw news, I was somewhat pleased with the president's commitment of additional troops to the war in Afghanistan.  But somewhat nervous about what political strings might be attached.

Leading up to President Obama's Tuesday speech, I had been struck by the tenor of news coverage.  I hear quite a bit of news on the radio via FOX and via Salem Radio Network news.  It seems to me that both, but particularly SRN, have presented the president's delay in terms of him exercising control and oversight of the military.  In other words, the president is a "take charge" kind of guy.  That presentation ramped up on Sunday and Monday, as the news reports talked about the president being poised to give his orders to the army.  That particular term, "orders," seems to have featured prominently in news coverage.  I do not recall any war decision from President Bush offered in those terms, either by the president or the press. 

I might as well test my recollection with a quick Google search ... which is inconclusive as I ponder what search terms would produce useful results. 

I finally went with "X issues orders to military leaders."  Zero Web results for Bush, but a smattering of hits for Obama.

Does the difference in phrasing stem from the White House, the press, or a combination of the two?  Both presidents said they were issuing orders with respect to troop increases.  One of the two had his statements translated that way in the press.

I did not hear Obama's speech straight through.  What I heard had him still implicitly assigning blame to Bush and distinguishing himself from his predecessor by emphasizing the degree of consideration he brought to the process and by noting that this commitment is not open-ended.

I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people. And it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.

 Oops.  Wrong speech.

I am not the first to note that Obama's speech contains a strategic paradox.  We cannot afford to let Afghanistan slip backward.  Nor can we afford an open-ended commitment to keeping Afghanistan from slipping backward.  By giving Gen. McChrystle three quarters of the requested troops and by setting a three year time frame for the counterinsurgency strategy, the president offered our enemies a roadmap to frustrating our efforts.  Make it more expensive than Obama projects, and claim the resulting victory.

Though the first year of Obama has left me a bit astounded by the degree to which he has abandoned bipartisan pretensions, I will hold out the hope that he offers the time frame primarily to motivate the government of Afghanistan.  If they flop at the critical moment, Obama will extend the commitment.

Stressing allies while offering hope to the enemy still seems wrongheaded to me, however.