Obama's three-quarters have it both ways Afghan strategy

President Obama’s big speech announcing, after three months of indecision, that he will give Gen. McChrystal only three-quarters of the 40,000 additional troops the general told Obama he needed to achieve victory in Afghanistan left a lot to be desired.

Like Obama has done with issue after issue, his new “strategy ” for the War in Afghanistan tries to have it both ways. Obama’s strategy is a Bush-like surge, but with a timetable for ending, not winning the war.

I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

I have been an unrepentant supporter of the war, but a war our leaders are not willing to fight to win, is not a war we should fight.

Obama said he made his have it both ways decision because our national security is at stake:

I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

How can the Commander-in-Chief put a time limit on fighting for our national security?

I do not know if I can continue to support a war effort that Obama previously referred to as a “necessary war” and now calls a “vital national interest,” but is nevertheless only willing to continue for 18 more months. If it is necessary and vital should we not be willing to carry on until we are victorious?