AFGHAN STALL - AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  I was speaking with a military expert earlier today who was livid over President Obama's trip to Copenhagen Thursday to pitch the Olympics for Chicago.  This man, a retired British officer, made the point that our soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan while the president is delaying decisions on that war and worrying about his home city's athletic future.  The resentment is growing, as Fox News reports:

Is this any way to run a war?

Critics are lambasting President Obama for hitting the pause button on the war in Afghanistan, making U.S. commanders seeking thousands more troops there wait for a decision as he tries to get the "strategy right first."

"The commander in chief is the commander in chief, period," said retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "You can't fight a war from Washington D.C. There's only one way this works: You have trust and confidence in the leaders on the ground, or you don't."

Some critics are going so far as to ask whether Obama is more concerned with finding a political strategy to ensure his re-election than he is in finding a military strategy to win the eight-year war.

That question has been raised after Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top general in Afghanistan, revealed Sunday that he has spoken to the president only once since he took command in May.

"It is nutty," said Bing West, a former Marine and defense official in the Reagan administration. "Obama is stuck with his war of necessity yet he can't bring himself to face the fact he doesn't even know his commander in the field!"

COMMENT:  Don't be shocked if this attitude spreads.  We've written several times here of the possibility of a military revolt.  That doesn't mean a coup, obviously.  We've never had that.  But at various times in our history, like the late forties, elements of the military have made known their displeasure with an administration.  That could be risky for Obama, as the military is one of the most respected institutions in American society.

The outrage is growing, in part, because Obama announced a new strategy only in March.  Now he says that, before committing more troops, he wants to consider whether the strategy is right.  Isn't this what he should have been doing every day?  Isn't he commander-in-chief? 

As we pointed out earlier today, even some liberal columnists are questioning Obama's governing style.  The belief that he is some religious figure come to save us doesn't have quite the same constituency as earlier in the year.

September 29, 2009