If Dick Cheney didn't earn the title "Darth" that New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd bestowed upon him when in office, he's certainly earned it throughout his personal life. His raspy, shallow voice that pines to whisper, "Luke, I am you father" is quick to criticize the current administration.
The latest criticism, that the White House is "dithering while America's armed forces are in danger" as they draft a new Afghanistan strategy, has been met with strong rebuke from both the White House and democratic strategists. Cheney, after all, isn't the most popular figure in the Republican Party, and he can be easily used as a rallying call for Democrats still rightfully angered by the mess Bush and Darth left for President Obama to "mop up."
Afghanistan is one of those messes. A farrago of both necessity and psychological comfort in the immediate months following Sept. 11, the war in Afghanistan served Obama valiantly during the campaign, allowing the Democratic candidate to play both the dove and hawk, as he supported a full withdrawal from Iraq and a re-examination of the Afghanistan war front.
His decision on Iraq has been well-recorded and well-received with the American public. But what about Afghanistan?
The Afghanistan War, as I've mentioned before, has been called the war of necessity - a war that was reactive, rather than preemptive. As I've also mentioned before, publicly, it seems that Obama has two options: Either adopt Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendation of sending 40,000 additional troops to the region, or adopt Vice President Joe Biden's plan of withdrawing the majority of troops and applying elite teams of special forces to root out the al-Qaida holdouts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
There are strong cases to be made for both options. There is also a strong case to be made of a third option, a middle way that straddles both McChrystal's and Biden's approaches by sending in 20,000 troops with embedded special forces to the region.
Some now believe the president favors this third way. Politically, he shields himself from Republicans antsy to have a reason to label him as weak on national security, and he lets true liberals sleep easy knowing their president saved 20,000 troops from deployment.
Going for the third option, seeking the middle way, and refusing to get his hands dirty, is becoming a hallmark of Obama's presidency. Try as some conservatives may, Obama's policies aren't that radical.
Issue ownership is another problem the White House must confront. Just as his popularity has shown the first hints of slipping below the 50-point mark, many pundits have speculated that Obama's lack of definitiveness is to blame. Likewise, 43's arrogant certitude and Cheney's diabolical smirk may have hurt the popularity of the last West Wing occupants. It seems the nuance and consideration that goes into each decision coming from the Obama White House could very well keep driving public approval lower.
The American people respect definitiveness, but have little patience for nuanced policymaking, if only because we don't understand it. What's more, definitiveness, and "owning" of a war, is required. The president isn't reveling in indecisiveness, as Darth is too eager to point out, but is instead straddling the fence, trying to shape his image as a peacemaker while waging war.
Mr. President, it's time to put away the mop and get your hands dirty.
Matthew Christ is a political science sophomore. His column appears on Wednesdays.
