By Karl Rove
George Bush succeeded in Iraq by talking to his generals regularly.
So our top commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal has told CBSs 60 Minutes that he has spoken with President Barack Obama only once since June.
This is a troubling revelation. Right now our commander in chief is preparing to make one of the most important decisions of his presidencywhether to commit additional troops to win the war in Afghanistan. Being detached or incurious about what our commanders are experiencing makes it hard to craft a winning strategy.
Mr. Obamas predecessor faced a similar situation: a war that was grinding on pressure to withdraw troops and conflicting adviceincluding from some who saw the war as unwinnable. But George W. Bush talked to generals on the ground every week or two which gave him a window into what was happening and insights into how his commanders thought. That helped him judge their recommendations on strategy.
Mr. Obamas hands-off approach to the war seems to fit his governing style. Over the past year he outsourced writing the stimulus package to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey washed his hands of Attorney General Eric Holders decision to reinvestigate CIA interrogators and hasnt offered a detailed health-care plan.
Mr. Obamas aloofness on the war will be a problem if the recent airing of Joe Bidens views on Afghanistan is a tipoff that Mr. Obama will rely on his vice presidents guidance. According to reports in the New York Times and other publications Mr. Biden supports reducing troop levels in favor of surgical attacksmostly launched from offshoreand missile strikes against al Qaeda especially in Pakistan.
Such an approach would almost certainly lose the war. Actionable intelligencekey to defeating an insurgencywould dry up. Tribal chieftains would cut deals with the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Afghan government would probably collapse and the Afghan people would have little choice but to swing their support to the Taliban. Pakistan would likely come to see us as a fair-weather friend and increasingly resist U.S. attacks against al Qaeda on its soil. American credibility would be shattered. And militant Islamists would gain a victory.
Mr. Biden has a record rare in its consistency and duration of being wrong about big national security questions.
In his first U.S. Senate campaign in 1972 he called for cutting and running from Vietnam. He later voted to cut off funding for South Vietnam and spoke out against the war. After we did withdraw communist forces conquered South Vietnam as well as Cambodia where Pol Pot carried out a campaign of genocide.
In the 1980s Mr. Biden opposed President Ronald Reagans national security approach on almost every front including funding for the Contras in Nicaragua building missile defenses and increasing military spending. In the 1990s apparently willing to cede Kuwait to Saddam Hussein he voted against the first Gulf War. Over the past decade Mr. Biden opposed the surge that put us on the path to victory in Iraq. Instead called for a soft partition that would have divided Iraq into three countries.
Mr. Biden has been right about Afghanistan at least once. In 2002 he said Security is the basic issue in Afghanistan. Whatever it takes we should do it. History will judge us harshly if we allow the hope of a liberated Afghanistan to evaporate because we failed to stay the course.
The responsibility for the outcome of the war in Afghanistan rests squarely with Mr. Obama. Until now he seems to have treated the conflict as a distraction from his efforts to nationalize our health-care system. But the war is now front and center. He has been told by Gen. McChrystal that America needs more boots on the ground to win.
In the past when Mr. Obama has moved left he moved fast and far to the leftwitness his willingness to push health-care legislation even if it only has Democratic support. But when he has played to the centeras on Afghanistan when he decided in last years campaign that he needed to be tough on at least one of the wars America was engaged inhe has looked for appealing half-measures that ultimately prove unworkable.
It was easy in 2008 to criticize Mr. Bushs war leadership. But winning a shooting war requires a commander in chiefs constant direct and deep involvement. Mr. Obama could show he understands this if he uses his trip to Denmark this week (where he will serve as pitchman for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympics) to make a surprise visit to Afghanistan.
Refusing to provide all the troops and strategic support that his commanders are requesting will be to concede defeat. Well soon know whether Mr. Obama has the judgment and the courage to win this war.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
