Friedman is 110 pct right on Obama, A-stan

This time, Tommy is spot-on about Obama's shirking responsibility for Afghanistan:

President Obama is not an Afghan expert. Few people are. But that could have been his strength. The three questions he needed to ask about Afghanistan were almost childlike in their simplicity. Yet Obama either failed to ask them or went ahead, nevertheless, because he was afraid he would have been called a wimp by Republicans if he hadn’t.

That's why, as I blogged earlier, Obama will NOT fire McChrystal.

Anyway, Friedman then unbacks the three questions in detail. Here's Numero Uno:

The first question was hiding in plain sight: Why do we have to recruit and train our allies, the Afghan Army, to fight? That is like someone coming to you with a plan to recruit and train Brazilian boys to play soccer.

That's why you should read the full article.

That said, a teaser. The second question is obvious: Why are we still in bed with Karzai?

The third is great: What do we do if we should happen to win? Sorry, not giving the answer away, though. Read the column.

A missed shot at the League of Nations?

Just what did Woodrow Wilson's massive stroke, along with the cover-up of it by his wife and WH staff, cost the country? A shot at entering the League of Nations with the Lodge amendments, perhaps? There's more here.

Rand Paul, flip flopper

He originally said he wouldn't take money from bailout-voting Senate Republicans. And now he is. Will TPers punish him?

Afghanistan, Obama, McChrystal

It's time for Obama to act forcefully, not just on McChrystal but larger issues, as Eliot Cohen notes. Will he? I doubt it. That would require more fishing or bait-cutting.

That said, I disagree with Cohen about the firm deadline for winding down the surge. Sure, the Taliban took note. But, it put kleptomaniac Afghan President Hamid Karzai on public notice, as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is likewise on public notice.

The flip side is that the one-year time for the surge was done for domestic consumption. If Obama were really making the hard choices, he would have gone a bit longer, say, 18 months.

That said, for Obama to sack McChystal would make this "Obama's war." Like Korea became "Truman's war" after he sacked Dugout Doug MacArthur.

Why do generals have entourages?

The Rolling Stone article about the gaffe-prone, image-hungry Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, raised exactly that question for me, because it made me think back to Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to Congress a week ago, where he fell a bit ill and had members of his entourage, including a de facto "agent" (like sports star or actor agents) speaking for him. Along those lines, if you don't have time to read the full RS article, in snippet posts here and here, Atlantic Monthly summarizes how the prima donna level of American brass hats has entered a whole new level.

Beyond showing McChrystal the politician, the fact that even he calls Marjah a "bleeding ulcer" shows that, well, he just wasn't right about counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. Perhaps that's why he needs an entourage — to prop up his image.

That said, this whole idea smacks, if but vaguely, of Caesarism. Obama should have first, sacked McC when he first was quasi-insubordinate, and second, come up with a different plan for Afghanistan.

That said, I see one inaccuracy in the RS article right off the bat. German President Horst Koehler was not "forced" to resign over Afghanistan. Even though he was a bit outspoken for holding a ceremonial position, the whole idea of a president in a fully parliamentary democracy is that, barring something truly beyond the pale, he or she can't be forced to resign. And, Koehler chose to step down.

Obamiac cavillations hit academia

Via Greenwald:

A professor of political science who claims the office of the presidency is too weak for a president, aka President Hope, to accomplish anything, when he is contradicted not just by trends of the last 100 years, but more specfically, by eight recent years of Bush-Cheney, is full of shit.

No other way to put it. Other than to say, contra Johnathan Bernstein, the idea IS "a joke."

Like Glenn, I get both more tired of, and more disgusted by, Obamiac apologetics all the time.