Uncertain trumpet

LITTLE ROCK — "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." -A. Lincoln THANKS TO Bob Woodward, the Washington Post's ever-open drop for leaked documents, the American people have the benefit of the latest report and recommendations from the commanding general of NATO forces in Afghanistan. The headline on the front page of yesterday's paper summed up the story: "More troops crucial, says top general/ Afghan war failure feared."

Talk about deja vu:

The grim picture presented by General Stanley McChrystal sounds much like the one that faced the previous commander-in-chief in Iraq back in 2006, when defeat seemed not only in prospect but already in process.

That president and commander-in chief had a choice: (a) accept defeat, which would of course be called an orderly withdrawal, or (b) stake all on a new strategy and new troops to carry it out with no guarantee of success.

Presidents do not sign on for easy decisions. Indeed, it's a wonder why anyone would want the job. Thankfully, leaders of character and judgment do accept it from time to time, which is one reason there is still a United States of America.

HEEDING the counsel of a general named Petraeus, and a couple of maverick senators named McCain and Lieberman, George W. Bush refused to accept defeat. Instead, he approved what came to be known as the Surge. It succeeded, thanks to the Lord of Hosts and the armed forces of the United States, not necessarily in that order, for the Lord helps those who help themselves.

That new strategy succeeded, we would do well to add, at no little sacrifice, noting the latest military funerals here in Arkansas. Now, unless the fruits of that Surge are frittered away, Iraq may complete the transformation from debacle to ally, from an object lesson in defeat to an example of victory in this long, long war on terror-whatever it's called these days in Washington's well appointed executive offices far from the dust and blood of battle.

Now another president faces another momentous decision in a war Barack Obama used to say had to be won. Faced by declining support for that war, the new president is sending mixed signals. Yes, he's already dispatched additional troops, but he has yet to endorse any clear new strategy there, let alone the one being recommended by the new American commander. And while he dithers, support for the war ebbs. The same sort of senators who opposed the Surge in Iraq-there was a time when Barack Obama was among them-can be counted on to find excuses for not supporting a bold new strategy in Afghanistan. And when politicians are looking for a way to dodge a decision that could prove as unpopular as it is necessary, any excuse will do.

Here's a case in point: Carl Levin, D-Indecision, who'd much prefer to hand the job off to the Afghans themselves. Who wouldn't? Unfortunately, it's more than clear that Afghanistan's so-called government and still nascent army is far from ready to shoulder that responsibility.

If the president is looking for more realistic counsel, he might consult with someone like Ike Skelton, who represents the dwindling old Harry Truman-Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party when it comes to military affairs. And the security of this country in general. At 77, Mr. Skelton chairs the House Armed Services Committee, and he speaks plain. Which figures; he's from Missouri, Harry Truman country. And this is what Ike Skelton said on this month's anniversary of the September 11th attacks on America:

"America's security depends on our success in denying al-Qaida breathing room to plot future attacks on the U.S. and our allies. . . . Tragically, the attacks of September 11, 2001, were not al-Qaida's first acts of war against the United States. The same plotters were behind the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the attack on the USS Cole in the year 2000. And given the opportunity, al-Qaida would attack us again. We must keep al-Qaida on the run, as we havesince 9/11."

Much like Margaret Thatcher telling another president, George Herbert Walker Bush, that now was no time to go wobbly after Saddam Hussein had seized Kuwait, Mr. Skelton was sending a message to this commander-in-chief when he noted: "Now is not the time to lose our resolve. We must give our forces the time and resources they need to show progress in the fight against the enemies responsible for the attacks of 9/11."

Direct, plain-spoken Ike Skelton is no Churchillian orator, and he's certainly not as articulate as Barack Obama, who can explain both sides of any thorny question, split the difference, and leave his listeners wondering only about where he's finally come down, if he has. Afghanistan is still one of those questions hanging in the balance at White House, and how it is resolved will say a lot not just about this president but about the prospects for freedom and security in the world.

IF THE PRESIDENT is looking for excuses to lose the war in Afghanistan, with all the strategic dangers so wobbly a course would raise for this country, its NATO allies, and neighboring countries in the region like Pakistan, then he'll find no shortage of them in the counsels of his own party. Some of the same voices who urged giving up on Iraq a few years ago can be heard urging the same fearful counsel where Afghanistan is concerned.

The new American commander there now has come up with a clear if sobering assessment, and a strategy in response, one that demands even more valor and sacrifice.

But the word from the White House is neither Stop nor Go, but Wait. The only clear strategy being followed in Afghanistan at the moment is to temporize. Which carries its own dangers.For the one sure requirement for victory there or anywhere else is the support of public opinion at home. That's the really critical front in any war, the home front.

Every day that passes without strong presidential leadership, the more support for this war will dribble away. It was said long ago: If the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who shall prepare to do battle?