which even at the time they were made should have been seen as what they obviously were: so much campaign puffery.

What is this strategy? It’s one Obama uses for many issues, not just Afghanistan. It goes something like this:

(1) say whatever you think will get you votes, even if you don’t mean it

(2) do something opposite when the original stance becomes politically inexpedient and/or unecessary

(3) don’t acknowledge the contradiction or even attempt to explain it

(4) if somehow you are forced to break rule three and acknowledge your reversal, blame it on someone else"preferably George Bush, Republicans in general, and/or those crazy Tea Party attendees.

[ADDENDUM: The wrongness and inconsistency in Obama’s Afghan policy was all quite clear back in July of 2008, when I wrote this post.

And don’t forget that Obama could not have been more incorrect about the surge, not only at the very beginning but repeatedly, even after it had clearly succeeded.

How could anyone—even a liberal Democrat—have faith in his judgment on military matters?