-----------
President Obama has been accused of dithering when it comes to making a decision about the next steps to be taken in the military conflict in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Prodded by some Members of Congress, Senators, the media, and various experts, the President has been urged to make a quick decision and announce it. He has refused to cave in to this pressure, and has continued to listen to advisors from various camps before announcing a decision.
The accusation of dithering carries with it a stigma of vacillation, casting him as one who is incapable of making a hard decision. However, in order to vacillate, it would be necessary for him to have made a decision and then backed away from it. I have to say that President Obama was clear in his campaign that he would place this military situation at the top of his list of urgency and that he would commit himself to winning this war against Al Qaeda . I have no reason to believe that he has abandoned this intent; what is at question is the method of accomplishing it. This is the topic being discussed with his military advisors.
A commitment to lengthy dialogue on an issue before making a decision is a departure to many, having experienced a previous administration which was known for knee-jerk reactions, such as the decision to enter Iraq without clear intelligence. Some are willing to forget or overlook the disaster created by that kind of decision-making.
A strong proposal publicized prematurely by the President's chief military advisor in Afghanistan has led many to speculate on the number of lives which have been lost while the President dithers over his decision. A contrary view is the longer one, which asks how many lives will be saved by a well-thought-out decision which is more focused on accomplishing the purpose of our military presence. President Obama is engaged in a dialogue which seeks to define that purpose more clearly, then allowing the United States and our allies to take the next steps in this conflict with greater clarity. To some, that may seem like a diversion; to others it is a welcome form of responsible management.
This method of decision-making is not the first employed by the President to confuse some pundits. Multi-tasking and the desire for bi-partisanship have befuddled veteran pundits and legislators alike. He is a product of a new generation of leadership, and with that comes new methods of governance.
In the long run, that which is being criticized as dithering will emerge, I believe, as a characteristic of wisdom and careful management of the awesome task placed in the lap of the President of the United States.
Photo credit: stock.xchng vi
No comments:
Post a Comment