Can't blame you, Dr. Feaver, for trying create some sense of equivalence between Bush's misleading statements in the lead-up to war and Obama's position on Afghanistan.

You write that Obama "campaigned on the claim that Afghanistan is a war of necessity that was under-resourced because President Bush ignored military advice." It seems to me that we should all be able to stipulate to all aspects of this claim by now.

And the actions Obama took once he assumed the presidency? He announced the assignment of three more brigades to Afghanisan in his first month in office, with additional troop increases expected pending a review. I don't believe Obama ever campaigned on an open-ended military commitment.

If Dr. Feaver can identify a real instance of misleading comparable to Bush's statement of March 8, 2003, that " We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq," he should spell it out rather than making unsupported suggestions.

Asleep at the wheel on terrorism before 9/11. Invading Afghanistan after 9/11, and within months neglecting that war to focus on Iraq. Mismanaging the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of Iraq, and the fight against insurgency in Iraq. Staining the honor of the United States by sanctioning torture and mistreatment of detainees, in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. Continuing to neglect the war in Afghanistan for years, before handing off a rapidly deteriorating situation there to his successor. Diddling ineffectually while a major American city was devastated by an ordinary natural disaster. Letting whole federal agencies -- FEMA, Interior, Justice, the SEC, the MMS -- grow inattentive to their responsibilities, if not openly corrupt. Entering office to preside over a government with a budget surplus and a country with a 5% unemployment rate, and leaving with gigantic deficits, the financial markets on the brink of collapse and the economy mired in the worst recession in 80 years.

"I certainly do not think the Bush administration did everything right and that every criticism is completely without foundation." This is what passes for self-criticism in the arsonist's appraisal of the fire brigade's performance.

More than half of Barack Obama's political difficulties now stem from his refusal to recognize in time the extent of the damage done by the last administration. Afghanistan, which he called the war of necessity, was worse when he took office than it was when he started his campaign. The recession, also, was far worse than he thought it was upon becoming President. Obama compounded his problems by not recognizing the latter error in time, and by continuing to speak in terms of a cyclical downturn from which recovery would soon emerge.

The great virtue of Franklin Roosevelt's approach to the Presidency in 1933 and later is that he recognized, and showed to the public that he recognized, how much trouble the country was in. Herbert Hoover's reputation, then and later, suffered for it. Obama has fallen short of Roosevelt's performance, in that respect, during the last two years. One consequence of that is our having to listen to talk about Greek tragedies from servants of a President who let his country down as badly as any man who has ever served in that office.

What an awful post. Even if it was coherent and used evidence that supported its assertions, it would still be quite silly to proclaim that the book damns Obama unequivocally based on a few deliberately provocative out-of-context excerpts. But this is worse than that; let's go through some major flaws point-by-point.

"A president 'misleading' the American public"

Afghanistan can be both a war of necessity and a war that we cannot give an open-ended commitment to. If the war wrecks our economy and weakens our security by overexertion of the military, does it matter that it was "necessary"? Backtracking a bit on campaign rhetoric based on a more informed view of the war is hardly "misleading."

"National security policy dictated more by partisan interests than by the national interest. Thus Woodward reports Obama imposing an artificial timeline on the Afghan surge because the President is adamant that '...I can't lose the whole Democratic party.'"

This isn't a "partisan interest," it's a reflection of the fact that we're a democracy, and that the Democratic party, through elected representatives, have a say in national security policy. Wars in America have always been about domestic politics, and that includes making plans for war with political consideration in mind. Also, no evidence that the "partisan interests" actually take "more" precedence than security interests.

"The White House political team front and center in national security policy...Axelrod, not a national security policy lead, is responsible for managing the Woodward relationship even though the author's focus was clearly on the wars. "

Yes, shocking that the top political advisor and spin doctor is managing a relationship with a well-known writer who is working on a book about the president! How DARE Obama do that!

"...Petraeus is reported to say, over a glass of wine, that the Obama administration was '[expletive] with the wrong guy.'"

Even more shocking - a famous and influential general gets frustrated and somewhat egotistical about a heated policy dispute! This has never happened before in the history of the United States! Ever!

"Woodward appears to document an even more profound disregard for the ongoing war in Iraq."

Okay, for this Feaver just linked to the WaPo article. This is the only supporting bit I could find in it: "The war in Iraq draws no attention in the book, except as a reference point for considering and developing a new Afghanistan strategy." The book doesn't focus on Iraq; therefore Obama "profound[ly] disregard[s]" it. Or maybe there wasn't nearly as much interesting reporting about Iraq, so Woodward didn't feel the need to include much. This claim isn't just misleading or mistaken; it's a plain lie.

"A fundamental naiveté about military operations. Thus one finds a commander-in-chief willing to authorize a surge of combat troops but unwilling ("I am done doing this") to authorize the requisite enabling troops that make those combat troops effective. Or a commander-in-chief refusing ("Why do we keep having these meetings?") to revisit, review, and revise earlier decisions as the enemy reacts and as the situation on the ground develops."

Petraeus gave his word that Obama's strategy would work. The "why do we keep having these meetings" quote is taken entirely out of context; in context, it refers to the Pentagon heckling Obama about his final decision. Of course they're revisiting and reviewing the strategy more generally. Besides, didn't you criticize Obama for dithering?

There's more, but I'll stop here. I share Mr. Feaver's concern about divisions in Obama's Afghanistan team, but this post is beyond silly. It's grasping at straws, projection, and so stupid that it's difficult to believe Mr. Feaver doesn't know better. This schlock would be an embarrassment in the Weekly Standard, let alone here.

On the one hand in various venues we discuss realpolitik, and yet we embrace an idealism in others that smothers strategic thought.

What common sense man or woman can embrace "a world without nuclear weapons" at this point in time without considering all the actors on the world stage and the possible repercussions?

The President talks about our not bringing democracy to others but that individuals within separate countries will do so. Not with the modern weapons states have. The people will be crushed. They have already have in numerous parts of the world.

America is the leader of the free world, or at least was and should be. We can lead because we are strong. Democracy and democratic ideals are what we are all about. Have we forgotten who and what we are and what planet we live on?

We need to win hearts and minds at home, and abroad in numerous countries and regions. But the naive believe we already have, that economic changes have changed hearts and minds.

If we lessen our nuclear capabilitiy beyond a certain point we shall not have a safer world, or a safer America. Maybe in 50 years after we have shaped the world deep cuts could be done. But right now the proposed path we are on are wrong and dangerous.

You want to see a Greek tragedy? Let New Start pass and follow that with more deep cuts.

Barbara Tuchman in "The March of Folly" asks why leaders, and entire nations, so often in history do what is not in the best interests of their constituents? Read it and ask yourself if we are not on that road.

No to the New Start Treaty. It should all be rethought and resubmitted. We can only hope the Senate is fully awake.