No good option, but still, he must decide

The reconsideration of a strategy Obama announced last spring has taken months, and sparked a liberal/conservative debate over whether he is deliberating or dithering. To be sure, Obama does not want to ever be accused of a rush to judgment, the legacy now strapped around the neck of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, regarding his decision in 2003 to invade Iraq.

Putting aside the question of how long it would take Obama to come to a conclusion, and even the question of how things have changed — and it can be argued that they have indeed — why would the president want us to know that he isn’t pleased about his options, as yesterday’s papers and television reports like this one?

As president, Obama is our commander in chief. Whether he likes it or not it is the job he signed up for, fully aware we were fighting two wars. In addition, Obama himself characterized the Afghanistan conflict as the “good” war, our forgotten effort that needed to be righted, and again in August he reiterated that this was a war of necessity.

Now we are hearing he will raise troop levels, but the White House is not only insisting no decision has been made but is de-emphasizing those numbers and pressing the media to focus on the fact that a whole new strategy will emerge along with the troop increase. President Obama is rightfully questioning how much an increase would delay Afghan readiness and their ability to ultimately stand up as we draw down. He is rightfully questioning the legitimacy of President Hamid Karzai as a credible partner in Kabul, though that question was one he certainly was already asking when he decided last winter to initially send more troops to the fight there. Obama is rightfully questioning whether we have the ability to build capacity at all with an Afghan police force and military in which one in four participants can read and one in four drop out.

If Obama will make the case that we simply cannot invest more blood and treasure in Afghanistan, then it would make sense that he is building a case around three facts: that our own U.S. ambassador in Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, the former four-star general who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006-2007, has now informed the administration that he has grave concerns about Karzai’s willingness to rid his government of corruption and be a reliable partner and is therefore opposed to sending more troops; that recent expert assessments of our progress training, increasing and improving Afghan security forces are grim and undercut our ability to rapidly increase those forces as Gen. Stanley McChrystal proposes; and finally, that the Taliban has surpassed al Qaeda in Afghanistan, transforming the threats there.

Instead, we are told President Obama is questioning these factors and remains skeptical about all of it, yet only reviewing options that call for more troops. As commander in chief, President Obama will have to make a passionate case for his new strategy in order to sell an escalation in Afghanistan to the Congress and the rest of America. He will need to be emphatic — unfortunately, though there are no good choices, ambivalence won’t work here. Not with the lives of so many selfless Americans at stake.

WILL THE CONGRESS BACK MORE TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN? Ask A.B. returns Monday, Nov. 16. Please join my weekly video Q&A by sending your questions and comments to askab@digital-release.digital-release.thehill.com. Thank you.