If what the White House and Obama supporters have been saying for two years is true, the weighty decision on Afghanistan's troop strength is one that Obama shouldn't have to make. From airy speeches in Berlin, to campaign rallies boasting that The One would renew "tattered" alliances abroad, to smug lectures about President Bush's disrespectful treatment of our international friends and allies, President Obama was supposed to be the great uniter of the grand Western alliance, NATO's savior.
So far, he's saved nothing. President Obama has failed to turn any of his charm and charisma into meaningful support in Afghanistan. Where's the European surge? Where's the flood of NATO troops, inspired by Obama's lofty rhetoric, gushing into the Helmand? General McChrystal needs 48k more soldiers because he needs to hold territory and protect Afghani villages. Why hasn't he been able to supplant McChrystal's request with a sizable international force? Wasn't that the point of electing a President whose greatest strength was his popularity abroad?
President Bush was able to secure a coalition of 36 countries and 50k troops for the unpopular invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. President Obama hasn't been able to muster half that number for what is essentially a global peacekeeping operation. America's image may be improved overseas, but clearly the world -- and our European allies -- still respects muscle over mojo.
