The Least Worst Option

There seems to be a consensus amongst reasonable people that despite the obvious problems with Obama's Afghanistan plan, it is indeed, as he pointed out, the least worst option.

I don't believe the "status quo" argument has been sufficiently rebuked, but appreciate Obama acknowledging it as an option. He cited the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, ie more lands falling into the hands of the Taliban, as evidence the status quo is failing. An issue not addressed enough is the dividing line between the Taliban and Al Queda. In some respects, who cares if the Taliban take over large swathes of territory so long as Al Queda is not operating there? I would take the situation where the Taliban has the south, but Al Queda isn't set up there vs. the Taliban being driven back into a corner, but Al Queda is operative in that corner. For some reason, the Taliban and Al Queda are being merged into one enemy in this logic - but there should remain a distinction - terrorists and those who harbor them. The Taliban have harbored them in the past, but we've given them the option to give up AQ before and maybe 8 years of battle changes their mind. The continued low-level presence of Nato/US troops and drone strikes, while perhaps not sufficient to crush the Taliban, may be sufficient enough to keep them contained, off balance and unable to let Al Queda operate with impunity.

And as far as the least-worst option goes...the principle is good strategic thinking. As much as anyone, I favor dispassionate reasoning for making choices. In many respects, I supported the Iraq War not because of an overwhelming fervor for sending troops into the Middle East, but as sort of a 60-40 flush/straight/two pair kind of gamble to make a game changing play for the future of the Middle East. My dispassionate reasoning led to the conclusion Iraq was a bet worth making (because the alternatives were so lousy).

Liberals - and Obama among them - argued this was not sufficient reasoning to go to war. War is not a poker game or a bet. It is a response only to be used if necessary. In 2006 they looked like they were right. In 2003/2004 and 2009 they look like they were wrong, and so much so, they are employing the EXACT same logic to a more challenging and less strategically important country.

In any case, despite my own use of the "least worst option" logic, I'm not sure it is the best positioning for the President to take. I get it - this is Obama's style and people like it better than the blustering GW Bush. But certain things are emotional decisions and not purely rational. War is one of them. Imagine a young Barack getting down on his knees with a ring before Michelle and saying, "You know, Michelle, of all the girls I've ever met, you are the least worst option. You never sucked my buddy off and you seem to get along with my mom all right." He may well be right, but it strikes me as the wrong tone. Does Tom Brady in the huddle before the 4th and 2 play say to his guys, "Alright guys, let's do this, it is our least worst option, we can't give the ball back to Manning against our sorry ass defensive backs." Again, not the right tone for the moment. If you're in the foxhole holding down a position while the Taliban are shooting at you and you're gonna die because you're creating a distraction for another battalion to get into a favorable position to win back a hard fought piece of land, will it give you solace to think "this is the least worst option?"

I don't know.