THE WAR OF NECESSITY - AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone punctures the hypocrisy of a president who, oh, five minutes ago, described Afghanistan as a war of necessity.  Now, when he actually has to make a decision, the necessity turns into...well...a maybe:

"This is not a war of choice," Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

Ah yes, as Maurice Chevalier sang it, I remember it well.

But that was nearly seven weeks ago. Now it appears that Obama is about to ignore the advice of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whom he installed as commander in Afghanistan in May, after relieving his predecessor ahead of schedule.

To govern, in this administration, is to fudge.

During the first three weeks of September, Obama held one meeting on the "war of necessity." Then on Sept. 20, Obama appeared on five talk shows to push his health plan.

Nothing like a great set of priorities.

According to The Washington Post, "senior advisers" challenged some of McChrystal's key assumptions. "One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, 'A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day.' " Sounds just a bit condescending, doesn't it?

These people have no respect for military officers.  I heard some forgettable Democratic "expert" in national security say a few days ago on TV that suggestions about a possible blockade of Iran do not deserve replies.  The attitude of this crowd is that anyone who disagrees with them is too stupid to be taken seriously.

Among the assumptions, wrote the Post reporters, is "that the return to power of the Taliban would automatically mean a new sanctuary for al Qaeda." That's the same assumption Obama made in his speech to the VFW 44 days before.

Throw the speechwriter under the bus.

Declaring Afghanistan a "war of necessity" was a way for Obama and other Democrats to attack George W. Bush for choosing, in their view unwisely, to wage war in Iraq. But now when it comes time to wage the "war of necessity" in the way that our carefully selected general recommends, it turns out not to be so necessary any more. Not when Democratic politicians and Democratic voters are shying away from it.

Is there hope for a correct decision?

Maybe Obama will choose to wage his "war of necessity" in the way the general he selected believes is necessary for us to succeed.

But I wouldn't bet heavily on it -- not any more, in fact, than I would have bet on Chicago's chances of hosting the 2016 Olympic games.

Other nations are watching.  They are laughing.

October 5, 2009