I never understood why President Bush was slammed for his "bring them on" comment when post-Saddam violence in Iraq cropped up in mid-2003. What was he supposed to do? Cower and beg our enemies to leave us alone? Promise we'd start leaving in 18 months? Insist he's just as eager as our enemies that we bring our troops home?
A little swagger is good in war president. President Obama might want to be a little clearer on that.
UPDATE: Fareed Zakaria calls the president the anti-Churchill. And as you might expect for someone who couldn't find his posterior with both hands and a GPS signal, Zakaria thinks that is a good thing:
This first year of his presidency has been a window into Obama's worldview. Once most presidents get hold of the bully pulpit, they cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They gravitate toward grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny and embrace the moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing with Russia, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama is a realist by temperament, learning and instinct. More than any president since Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests carefully, providing resources to achieve them and keeping his eyes on the prize.
War is not a law review article or debating society. Real people fight and die--and win--for causes they believe in. In Zakaria's world--whatever it is--being the anti-Churchill is a good thing. In the real world, Churchill has his place.
