In The Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. argues that President Obama’s decision on Afghanistan was an effort to balance the opposing views as to what the new strategy should be. It is a politically risky move, but one that was made to both win the war and get the US military out as quickly as possible.

Dionne also notes that, while his approach is very pragmatic, it could present a political nightmare in the very near future. Middle-of-the-road foreign policies have not fared well in the past, so while his many be a smart policy decision, it remains to be seen how it will play out politically.

Obama was trying to identify middle ground by offering a Goldilocks strategy: neither too hawkish nor too dovish, but just right. He pointedly reassured doves that he had no interest in a “dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort,” while insisting to hawks that “our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He argued that the only way to speed ourdeparture from Afghanistan was to speed the entry of 30,000 troops now to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum.” In the Vietnam years, many spoke of a “win or get out” choice. Obama’s is a “stop losing to get out” plan.

President Obama is treading a fine line with his Afghanistan strategy: he risks alienating his base by continuing the war effort, but also could gain a lot by increasing troop levels, a policy which many Republicans and Independents support.

Photo (via artthreat.net)