THE BLOOM IS OFF THE ROSE - AT 10:15 A.M. ET:  David Broder, never one to be associated with conservatism, and one of the most respected columnists in Washington, strongly blasts President Obama over Afghanistan: 

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

The cost of indecision is growing every day. Americans, our allies who have contributed their own troops to the struggle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the Afghans and their government are waiting impatiently, while the challenge is getting worse.

Broder notes that there is a split between General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of our operations in Afghanistan, and our ambassador to the country, and former General Karl Eikenberry.

The president, notwithstanding his earlier rhetoric and actions, has hesitated to resolve the issue. Obama needs to remember what Clark Clifford, one of Harry Truman's closest advisers, said: that the president "believed that even a wrong decision was better than no decision at all."

There's a certain wisdom in that, up to a point:  No decision flashes weakness and confusion, which can easily result in a situation that is worse than a wrong decision.

Meantime, events in Afghanistan support McChrystal's prediction that delay in expanding the U.S. troop commitment will almost certainly lead to gains for the Taliban and greater risk for U.S. and allied troops.

In all this dithering, it's easy to forget a few fundamentals. Why are we in Afghanistan? Not because of its own claim on us but because the Taliban rulers welcomed the al-Qaeda plotters who hatched the destruction of Sept. 11, 2001. The Taliban also oppressed its own people, especially women, but we sent troops because Afghanistan was the hide-out for the terrorists who attacked our country.

The chickens are roosting.  The Obama administration, by deciding to try the mastermind of 9-11 in an ordinary federal courtroom, have reduced the attacks to street crimes.

George W. Bush said -- and Obama seemed to agree -- that withdrawal was not an option.

That imperative is reinforced by the presence of Pakistan, a shaky nuclear-armed power across a porous mountain border. If the Taliban comes back in Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda cells already in Pakistan will operate even more freely -- and nuclear weapons could fall into the most dangerous hands.

Given all of this, I don't see how Obama can refuse to back up the commander he picked and the strategy he is recommending. It may not work if the country truly is ungovernable. But I think we have to gamble that security will bring political progress -- as it has done in Iraq.

Obama did not believe that could happen there. But given what he inherited, and given what he has done so far, I think he has no choice but to play out that hand. If we can't afford to lose, then play to win.

COMMENT:  That is the best argument I've read, made by a journalist, on what our course should be.  I hope Broder's column is examined at the White House, for it brings with it the voice of experience, a quality dramatically lacking in this administration.

November 14,  2009