June 23, 2011 6:24 AM

Splitting the baby? Obama charts "centered" Afghanistan plan

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
Afghanistan ,
Obama Administration
Pres. Obama announces Afghan drawdown June 22, 2011.

President Barack Obama announces plans for a drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan during a prime-time speech to the nation at the White House, June 22, 2011.

(Credit: AP)

When President Obama announced the 30,000 troop "surge" in Afghanistan in 2009, some claimed the president was "splitting the baby," King Solomon-style. Similarly, his announcement Wednesday to pull out those surge troops by the fall of 2012 will likely seem a dissatisfying compromise to both those on the left and the right.

As he so often does when announcing a critical decision, Mr. Obama on Wednesday night acknowledged the opposing forces that weighed on his decision.

"Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face," he said. "Others would have America over-extended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad."

He continued, "We must chart a more centered course... We must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute."

The president's strategic decisions in Afghanistan put into focus the leadership style he has cultivated since taking office in 2009: Mr. Obama crafts decisions -- whether on foreign policy, health care, energy policy, taxes or the deficit -- only after considering a range of opinions on the issue. It's a deliberative process which can lead to decisions that, on their face, appear to split the difference between two sides.

Obama: This is beginning of the end of the Afghanistan war
Transcript of Obama's speech on Afghanistan
CBSNews.com special report: Afghanistan

Explaining deliberative, nuanced decisions in a nonstop news cycle that favors black-and-white answers can be a challenge for the president. One thing that voters understand, however, is results. If the president can advance his agenda -- taking steps such as improving the economy and ending the wars -- before November 2012, it may not matter whether voters are satisfied with "splitting the baby."

Watch Mr. Obama's full speech above.

"Most voters don't care about the process, only the product," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "Presidents look weak when they lose. When they win something, even half loaves, they tend to be seen as stronger."

By November 2012, people may feel differently about the president's withdrawal plan, but for now it's clear many liberals think it's too slow, while many conservative hawks think it's too swift.

Afghan leader, Taliban react to Obama's war plan

Mieke Eoyang, director of the national security program at the moderate think tank Third Way, contends that this doesn't necessarily mean Mr. Obama was simply looking for middle ground.

"A lot of people are calling this a compromise," she said. "I don't know if that accurately reflects his thinking, as if he put all the [withdrawal] numbers on a board" and chose the middle number.

"I'd like to think he has a very strong policy reason for what he does," she added.

Norm Ornstein, a scholar the American Enterprise Institute, said that Mr. Obama wasn't forging a compromise between liberals and conservatives, but one with his military leaders. "If military commanders say they can handle it, it doesn't matter if John McCain on the right or Dennis Kucinich on the left" don't like it, he said.

Reaction to Obama's speech reveals GOP split over Afghanistan
Congress gives Obama's Afghan plans mixed reviews

The president's approach to foreign policy has similarly taken a beating from both the left and the right this year over U.S. engagement in Libya. His decision to take limited action without congressional approval has angered liberals and anti-interventionists, while hawks and neoconservatives took issue with the administration's strategy of "leading from behind."

Both Eoyang and Ornstein said the mission to kill Osama bin Laden helps disprove the notion that Mr. Obama is a leader who bends to political pressure.

"That's what happens when you have someone careful and deliberative -- that kind of policy success," Eoyang said.

Still, there are a number of examples where Mr. Obama's seemingly deliberative approach to policy has worked against him.

McCain: "Unnecessary risk" in Obama's Afghanistan plan
In Afghanistan, who will pick up where the U.S. leaves off?

"Twice Obama tried to find common ground on energy, and in the same way, it backfired," Ornstein said. His call for more nuclear power preceded the earthquake and nuclear crisis in Japan, while his endorsement of more offshore oil drilling came before the BP oil spill.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's 2010 negotiations over the Bush tax cuts have left him in the awkward position of having to re-negotiate the deal two years later. As many as 38 percent of Americans said in a CBS News poll that the extension of the tax cuts could help the economy, but the deal left the president's liberal base irate.

By forging a compromise, Ornstein said, "you can suffer erosion for your own base -- so you better hope it works."


Add a Comment See all 69 Comments
by justme2012 June 23, 2011 8:05 PM EDT
A baby in Libya was killed by America's non-hostile actions.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti June 23, 2011 7:29 PM EDT
We needed a Franklin Roosevelt and we got a Bill Clinton (a Republicon Corporatist).
Reply to this comment
by thinkingonetoo June 23, 2011 5:52 PM EDT
Just another two-face politician with no balls to stand up for his own promises...unless it's near re-election.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti June 23, 2011 7:26 PM EDT
Because the entire government has been seized by war profiteers and other giant corporations of the military-industrial-financial complex.
by WillMunny1 June 23, 2011 3:59 PM EDT
I have to laugh at the medias attempt to make out Obama as wise as Solomon. Who are these idiots who claim this is taking a Solomon approach to the troop withdrawls?
Well he's no Solomon in the smarts department.
He took the easiest,riskiest and politically beneficial way out for himself .
It wasn't too bright telling the terrorists his plans so they can counter with their own. Like wait us out.
Reply to this comment
by gratvialavas June 23, 2011 4:04 PM EDT
He doesn't have to be Solomon. Because, guess what, it's not a baby. It's thousands of soldiers. And you can split that.

This whole Solomon analogy is inaccurate. CBS needs better writers, IMO.
by WillMunny1 June 23, 2011 5:10 PM EDT
True and
He can be just dumb old Obama and mess it up!
by fxr60 June 23, 2011 3:26 PM EDT
Obama needs to talk to General Petraeus and other Generals before he "downsizes" for his political use. We do NOT need to lose all we have gained by pulling out to soon! We will no more get out of there and the Taliban will take over if there are no troops or enough troops to keep them out! Libya is where we need to get out-they didn't bomb us on 9/11 like the radical taliban and we have the right to strike back against terrorist that bomb our cities and kill American citizens. Obama is out for votes and playing politics!
Reply to this comment
by jgg000101 June 23, 2011 3:59 PM EDT
from what I understand, obama's decision did not coincide with gates', or petraeus' recommendations. In fact, he didn't mention either one of them in his speech which he surely would have if they backed his announcement. This is where the "baby gets split" and the "fence gets straddled". The withdrawal plan in too much for the defense dept. and military - given that obama had already given them only half of what they requested for the surge - and for the ant-war left, it's not enough.
by Bob_of_Bob June 23, 2011 4:10 PM EDT
Actually he did not take any of the options given to him by Gates, Petraus, or Clinton. Both Gates and Petraus stated a slower withdraws. He took option three which came from Biden and not the people on the ground. Sounds like some Vietnam Presidents we had.
by Danize June 23, 2011 3:16 PM EDT
Boy, here's an irony: the same public that was initially gung ho for Bush's madcap military adventure in Iraq, totally peripheral to America's strategic and security interests, now gets cold feet about maintaining the minimum number of troops necessary in Afghanistan to insure victory in that strategically vital nation.

Oh, one could trot out the usual Bush bashing hindsight facts. Had Captain Crunch had his wits about him and finished what he had started in Afghanistan instead of caving in to neocon dreams of wider Mid East conquest, the situation in Afghanistan today would be much more secure and managable. At least we can't blame him for the latest spat of sun spots... or can we?

Anyway, failure to follow through in Afghanistan would be disastrous for America and the world's future security. Keep in mind that Pakistan tetters on the brink of becoming a radical Islamist anti-U.S. state - with nukes. Pastun Sunni brotherhood what it is, a collapsed Afghan government would invite an intervention spearheaded by the most radical elements of the Taliban on both sides of the border. Afghanistan in no wise must be left twisting in the wind and so vulnerable. America has not only its own security to consider; it also has a moral obligation to the Afghan people.
Reply to this comment
by rank_n_file June 23, 2011 3:08 PM EDT
Let's take a cold hard look at the US war mentality. The US fought the Iraq War, a war that should never have been waged by the US - a war predicated on false, fraudulent info and intent. And now the right-wing war hawks that got the US into the "Iraq Mistake" are now clamoring for the US to abandon the Afghanistan War - the "legitimate" war - the war that absolutely must be waged and won - the war that was utterly neglected by the US because of its preoccupation with the "Iraq Mistake" - the war that is taking place in what the whole World knows and acknowledges is the spawning grounds for Taliban and Al Queda terrorists.

THAT war, the Afghanistan War, is the war that stunted right-wing moron ideologues now want the US to abandon!?!?! That would mean two enormously costly wars fought and lost by the US in the past 10 years -- two wars which the US will have abandoned leaving those countries in utter chaos -- two wars which the US fought and abandoned leaving those countries utterly decimated and in much, much worse condition than they were in before the wars -- two wars which the US claimed to be fighting "for the benefit of those countries" -- two wars the US said would leave those countries better of than before the war - two wars which have left those countries utterly decimated and in total chaos.

Can there be any doubt whatsoever why the right-wing political dolts in the US should not be trusted to run our government? The right-wing political ideologues in the US have tanked the economy and trashed this country's reputation in the World by fighting and losing two wars which they now complain were horrible mistakes. What a horrid right-wing global disaster these Republican and Tea Party fools have left us with.
Reply to this comment
by Truth_Tracker June 23, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
Another Obama "cut the baby in half" solution. Someone needs to explain to Obama and all politicians that "Solomon's Solution" (cut the baby in half) was NEVER considered an 'acceptable' solution. King Solomon was trying to determine who was the rightful biological mother of an infant, where two women both claimed the baby was theirs. After laboring to decide who the real mother was, King Solomon finally issued the decision and decree that the baby was to be cut in half, with one-half of the infant's body given to each woman. Upon hearing this, the 'real' biological mother came forward and said "I will withdraw my claim; let the other woman have the infant." In doing this, King Solomon then realized this woman was the 'real' mother - with the compassion of a true mother, and he declared her to be the mother who should be given the infant. Once and for all, may all politicians throughout the World forever know that King Solomon had no intention of "cutting the baby in half." King Solomon at no time actually believed this was an equitable, viable or humane solution. King Solomon only proffered the absurd decision and decree for the purpose of "smoking out" the true mother of the infant. So to politicians everywhere - STOP CUTTING THE BABY IN HALF - and stop mis-portraying that atrocity as an equitable, viable, humane "solution." In fact, it is merely a gutless refusal to "Do the right thing" - a cowards refusal to make the right decision because it might offend somebody.
Reply to this comment
by jgg000101 June 23, 2011 3:37 PM EDT
"splitting the baby" sounded so much more intellectually superior to "straddling the fence".
by gratvialavas June 23, 2011 3:47 PM EDT
Except that it's not a baby. It can be split any number of ways, and should be. Unlike Solomon's baby, you don't kill it when you divide it.

Dividing it is not a refusal to "do the right thing." It IS the right thing.

Leave the bible stories for Sunday morning.
by gratvialavas June 23, 2011 2:34 PM EDT
See, the thing about the war is, it's not a baby. You can split it. You can draw it down in sections. You can avoid chaos. You can advance toward the goal line in quarters, not one long rush that gets you sacked. You can split this non-baby of a war down to a single soldier if you want, and tailor-make your exit in the way that makes the most sense.

It's not a baby. It can be split. It is being split. You're watching it being split.

And it will likely keep being split until everyone has split Afghanistan.
Reply to this comment
by bradkt1 June 23, 2011 1:52 PM EDT
When you make the extremists and ideologues on both the left and the right angry, you got it just about right.
Reply to this comment
by gratvialavas June 23, 2011 2:12 PM EDT
Absolutely agree.
See all 69 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...