NRO's Andy McCarthy believes that Obama is cynical when it comes to Afghanistan.  The way I see it, we get two choices:  He is either as bright as he has been heralded and is cynical OR he is incredibly naive about Afghanistan.  Let's see, IF he is as bright as he has been pegged, would he really believe that a stated timeline and so many rules of engagement will refocus our efforts on success in Afghanistan?  From McCarthy:

"During the presidential campaign, he and his party cynically raised the Afghanistan mission to a noble calling, not because they thought it really was one but because it made their political attack on the war in Iraq more effective."

Let's go the other route.  He actually believes in what he is doing.  I genuinely try to give him credit for believing that much of what he his doing is the right thing to do.  But a liberal friend of mine ask me after the Afghanistan speech:  "Won't the enemy just wait us out? . .I hope he has another plan."

McCarthy again:

"If we were actually in pursuit of the vital national interest “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future,” there could be no timetable constraining that worthy goal. The nation would commit to stay as long as it took to win, and we dissenters would be the plan’s most ardent supporters. To be sure, it’s laughable when a president who has now spent generations’ worth of money we don’t have suddenly 'refuses to set goals that go beyond . . . our means.' Afghanistan is a rounding error compared to Obama’s monstrous domestic agenda. But Obama is not too embarrassed to say such things, because he doesn’t see this fleeting surge as a matter of national security."

I hope he is wrong.  But the second option is pretty damned bad too.  Read the article here.

Thanks, David.