Charles, as much as I respect you, I see this very differently.

(And by the way, I've read Woodward's newest book, and have also read the Washington Post's coverage of the book)

Woodward's book shows that, if anything, the view of Obama as a procrastinator in Afghanistan is false - Obama only ever wanted 1 thing. A withdrawal.

Despite telling the American public that the war in Afghanistan was a "war of necessity, as opposed to a war of choice", Obama repeatedly told the armed forces to send him a plan for withdrawal....and the armed forces kept sending him plans for troop buildups and wider operations. The months of reported "indecisions" were, in fact the military trying to push Obama away from a plan of withdrawal.

Since you read the book, then you're familiar with Obama's six-page "terms sheet" for getting out of Afghanistan, which included specific instructions on what the military WASN'T supposed to do. When the Pentagon kept trying to re-open the decision and kept asking Obama new questions, Obama kept replying, "Why do we keep having these meetings?" The Pentagon and McChrystal kept pushing for their 40,000 troop option as part of a broad counterinsurgency and Obama continued to balk.

The book paints a clear picture of Obama wanting to withdraw from Afghanistan to retain support for party loyalists in 2012. Direct quote to a fellow Democratic senator..."I can't lose all the Democratic party".

From your comments, I'm not sure you're aware of just how many readers of the book are concerned about Obama as a commander-in-chief.

So I ask you - what kind of commander-in-chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war, while also announcing a fixed date for withdrawal? Here's the answer - one who doesn't have his heart in it. One who is more interested in making a political gesture than winning. One who wants to be perceived as trying, but is actually preparing the ground (or "political cover") for failure. One who doesn't want to take any action that might be perceived as supporting Western values in a non-Western world.

As for your statements about Bush - remember that when Bush ordered the surge, the military kept handing him plans only intended to keep a lid on the violence in Iraq so that a settlement could be negotiated...and Bush insisted on a plan for winning....and Petraeus gave it to him. By contrast, from the minute Obama entered the White House, he did a near-180 on his campaign rhetoric on Afghanistan.

And if anything, Obama may be letting what we achieved in Iraq (which he initially opposed, and then took some credit for) slip away. At the rate Obama has lost U.S. leverage in Iraq, the next Woodward book might be about Obama losing the winnable war bequeathed to him.

Notice how Obama has barely lifted a finger to try to get al Maliki to step down or to deal with the stalking and murders of the Iraqiya party. 4,000 American servicemen and women died to help the Iraqi people establish a republic....and seven months after the first election, our new commander-in-chief stands by while a political syndicate tries to nullify the results. It's just like when Obama ignored the Green Movement's uprising in Iran.

And finally, regarding the Taliban (which, even by conservative accounts, is getting their asses kicked right now) - this concept of them wanting to negotiate only works if we are committed to staying around (and not rushing for the exits). This is where (gasp!) I wish we still had Bush around - he would likely say to the lower-level Taliban, "we'll let you live and join the Afghan govt and put yourself in the political process - so long as we're there to supervise you and hold you to the terms of your surrender".

One wonders if the timing of the Taliban wanting to negotiate with the Karzai govt is only because they are royally losing - or also because they know that the U.S. is on its way out, and that the U.S. has a leader who will engage in diplomatic surrender. It wouldn't be the first time our enemies took full advantage of our weaknesses.

All I can hope for is that the damage will be limited, by the time this coward and fool is voted out of office in January 2013.