Every newspaper I read this morning had at least one opinion piece on Afghanistan. But the one that's getting the most attention (he's booked tonight on Larry King, for whatever that's worth) wasn't in any print publication. Michael Moore posted on his website, "An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore." And, as always, you know exactly where Moore stands after the first sentence:
Dear President Obama,
Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.
Interestingly, columnist Fred Kagan (usually known for clear opinions on issues of war and strategy) writes on Slate.com this morning that he's not sure what to think about Afghanistan:
That's because, when it comes to this war, I am the one thing that a columnist probably shouldn't be-ambivalent. I've studied all the pros and cons. There are valid arguments to justify each side of the issue, and there are still more valid arguments to slap each side down. And if the basic decision were left up to me, I'm not sure what I would do.
On the other side, David Brooks writes in today's New York Times that Obama's plan probably won't make anybody happy -- and argues that that probably means it's the right strategy:
Some very smart people say that the administration's direction is already fatally flawed....
These experts may be right. But none of us get to have our first choice on this matter. President Obama faces such a devilishly complex set of constraints that the policy he announces will be partially unsatisfying to every American and to every member of his administration....
But it may be the best strategy under the circumstances.