WASHINGTON POST COMES THROUGH AGAIN - 7:34 P.M. ET:  The Washington Post is a liberal paper, but, as we've said repeatedly, its editorial page is independent, often excellent, and a refreshing contrast to the stale, party-line New York Times.  Today the Post slams President Obama on Afghanistan, and deservedly so:

IT WAS ONLY last March 27 that President Obama outlined in a major speech what he called "a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan" that, he added, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."

...We strongly supported the president's conclusion that those goals were essential to preventing another attack on the United States by al-Qaeda and its extremist allies.

So it was a little startling to hear Mr. Obama suggest in several televised interviews on Sunday that he had second thoughts.

It sure was.  And it would be nice to have some consistency.

The president's doubts come at a crucial moment. He has just received a report from the commander he appointed, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, saying the United States and its allies are in danger of losing the war if they do not work more effectively to shore up the Afghan government and army and protect the population from insurgents.

You don't think the president's "doubts" are based on the opposition of his party's left wing to sending more troops, do you?  Nah.  He'd never consider that.

The generals believed they had Mr. Obama's commitment to their approach after the policy review last spring. Now the president appears to be distancing himself from his commanders -- including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who testified before Congress last week that more forces would be needed.

Yeah.  Nothing like undercutting the troops in the field and their commanders.  But when your sole interest in the military has been participating in "anti-war" demonstrations, this is what happens.

It's hard to see, however, how Mr. Obama can refute the analysis he offered last March. "If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged," he said then, "that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

The Dems called Afghanistan "the good war" merely as a means of condemning George Bush on Iraq.  Now the chickens are coming home, in fuel-efficient trucks, to roost.

"To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government," Mr. Obama concluded. As Gen. McChrystal's report makes very clear, keeping faith with that goal will require more troops, more resources and years of patience. Yet to break with it would both dishonor and endanger this country. As the president put it, "the world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos."

The ball is in Mr. Obama's court, and he can't play it by making another speech.  It's time to decide, Mr. President.  That is what governing is all about.  You remember governing, don't you?

Great work by the Post.

September 22, 2009