Mission accomplishable

General McChrystal met American lawmakers in Afghanistan this week, and told them "he believed that the mission was accomplishable".

Some of the lawmakers pressed McChrystal on Obama's lengthy decision-making, but the general described it as a "thoughtful process and wouldn't go any further," Price said. "I was a little surprised he didn't voice frustration with the delay."

"The visit could serve as a bellwether of how much support Obama will receive from congressional Republicans when he makes his announcement about the next phase of the war in Afghanistan on Tuesday night at West Point."

Republican support for President Obama's Afghanistan decisions is crucial - and that places the President in an awkward position. Support for the war from Democrats has plunged; according to a recent Quinnipiac poll 58% felt "the U.S. should not be involved in Afghanistan now". The same November 18 poll indicated only 38% of Americans approve of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan - a figure reinforced by results from a November 24 USA Today/Gallup poll. "Approval of Obama on Afghan war dives" read the headline appearing in newspaper kiosks, hotel rooms and airports nationwide - "55% disapprove of the way he is handling Afghanistan and 35% approve, a reversal of his 56% approval rating four months ago."

It's not likely that Obama is enjoying outperforming President Bush in this regard - but even though Democratic support for President Bush and the Iraq war plunged rapidly and immediately in 2003 it would take a full year after the fall of the Hussein regime before overall support for the president on Iraq dipped below 50% permanently.

But to the delight of Democrats (Harry Reid: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war") and horror of many Republicans...

Key Republicans said they expected a new strategy the the coming fall after Petraeus reported to Congress.

"I'm not going to dime the guy," the President later told me, declining to elaborate on what McConnell had said privately. "There was a lot of members that were sending signals, some directly to me. So I don't want to speak about a single guy. But I was getting word from all the senior team that were getting pinged by members that were saying, 'Petraeus better pull out,' 'We'd better do this,' 'We'd better do that.' 'Progress can only be made if fewer troops are there,' was kind of the attitude.

...even as support for the effort fell to its lowest point President Bush declined to let public opinion drive military strategy:

"I understand the politics of war, and I will listen to these allies and friends. But for me, the overriding concern is to succeed in Iraq. These political concerns are short-term compared to the long-term consequences of failure. And I would, from my perspective, I am more than willing to sacrifice short-term popularity to do what is absolutely right, so that in the long term, people will say, 'Now I understand why he made the decision he made."

While the results might seem counter-intuitive in light of his even more rapidly plunging support, President Obama seems less inclined than his predecessor to ignore the favor of the American voting public, and the resulting pressure from more vulnerable members of Congress.

It's safe - to the point of inanity - to say that all polls indicate a divided American electorate. Beyond that they leave much to interpretation, and acting on interpretation means risk. But generally leaders lead and followers choose sides and risk is part of the equation. And while it's a difficult political trick to be all things to all people all of the time, the New York Times assures us that Obama's Afghan Strategy Will Contain Messages to Several Audiences, even though the story contains this cautionary note: "as Mr. Obama's own aides concede, the messages directed at some may undercut the messages sent to others."

As for what might follow, we'll see what happens after Americans get polled again.

(But part two is here.)

- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.