Ought to be left to historians, rather than mere partisans.
Victor David Hanson will do:
Vowing to do what it takes in the good war by leaving Iraq—infusing more troops into Afghanistan, and occasionally invading Pakistan—was for candidate Obama always a rhetorical stance that proved both his anti-Iraq War bona fides and his larger credibility on matters of national security. But President Obama and his mercurial supporters in Congress will soon face a rather embarrassing dilemma. Without the responsibilities of a commander-in-chief, he once demanded we should leave Iraq when leaving would have lost that war. But now, as commander- in-chief he will soon learn that a few thousand more troops will not guarantee lasting victory over the Taliban. And changing strategy from stealthy attacks by aerial drones in Pakistan to open ground incursions across the border risks widening rather than solving the conflict.
“Taking our eye off the ball” was always a dubious campaign talking point. Afghanistan was not the only “ball” in the global war against terror; we never took our eye off it; and we were always binocular.
The flow of additional forces from pacified Iraq may help in the short term, but anything resembling a “victory” in Afganistan will be much harder than many people assume. It will take time and commitment, something President George Bush manufactured for himself in Iraq against almost universal opposition.
How much commitment will President Obama carry into a fight that will now become his? How much time will the Medea Benjamin brigades give him?
I guess we’ll see.