Irresolution

Op-Ed Contributor - From Beirut to 9/11 - NYTimes.com
This piece by Robert McFarlane, former Middle East representative and national security advisor, concludes with

First, however, we must win in Afghanistan — truly the decisive battleground in this global struggle. Never has there been a greater need for experience and judgment in the White House. Unless our next president understands the complexity of the challenge as well as what it will take to succeed, and can lead his cabinet and our country in resolute execution of that strategy, we will lose this war.

Mr. McFarlane's piece appears to be a between-the-lines endorsement of the McCain-Palin ticket. But if it was, why didn't he just come out with it? Is he being luke-warm towards the Republican ticket? Given the focus on Afghanistan, could it be a tentative endorsement of Obama-Biden?

Nah... He's got to be a McCain-Palin backer, possibly holding his nose.

As for his piece, a couple of paragraphs from the end he writes, in the context of cabinet policy debates and leadership, that

What is intolerable, however, is irresolution.

In the context of this editorial, that passage is a bit ironic.

I'm sympathetic to McFarlane's point, though. He may wish the Reagan administration had taken a more resolute approach to the kidnapping of US officials in Lebanon. Who knows what the details were, but on the first occasion that Soviet officials were kidnapped in Lebanon, the Soviets responded resolutely (with a certain savagery), got their people back and did not have that problem again. I wonder if McFarlane urged that sort of resoluteness on the Reagan administration.

It seems to me that an Obama-Biden administration has more potential than a McCain-Palin administration to understand

the complexity of the challenge as well as what it will take to succeed, and [be able to lead the] cabinet and our country in resolute execution of that strategy.

Time will tell, but we're in for a wild ride irrespective of how the election turns out.