A majority of all combat-related U.S. casualties in the nine-year-long war in Afghanistan have occurred since President Barack Obama was inaugurated a little more than 17 months ago.

Between Jan. 20, 2009 and July 2, 2010, according to CNSNews.com’s database of Afghanistan war casualties, U.S. military personnel suffered 452 combat-related deaths in Afghanistan. That amounts to more than half of the total of 900 combat-related fatalities suffered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan during the entire nine years of the war.

To see a month-by-month chart of U.S. combat casualties in Afghanistan since October 2001 click here.

There have also been 40 non-combat related U.S. casualties in Afghanistan since Obama’s inauguration, bringing the total U.S. casualties in the country to 492 during Obama’s presidency. Non-combat fatalities include soldiers who have drowned or died from vehicle or other accidents.

Each of the top five deadliest months of the war, accounting for both combat and non-combat deaths, have taken place during Obama’s term. Those five months were:

1. June 2010 (59 casualties).
2. October 2009 (58 casualties).
3. August 2009 (51 deaths)
4. July 2009 (43 deaths)
5. September 2009 (37 deaths)

In all of 2009, there were 303 U.S. casualties (combat and non-combat) in Afghanistan, making it the deadliest year of the war, which started in October 2001. However, there were 199 U.S. casualties reported in Afghanistan in the first half of 2010 (January through June). That is more than double the 84 U.S. casualties that occurred in Afghanistan during the first half of 2009.

Last year, President Obama ordered an escalation in the U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan. As a candidate, he had vowed to shift the focus of U.S. military operations in the Middle East from Iraq to Afghanistan.  The president’s current policy is to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan one year from now, in July 2011.

About 42 percent of all combat and non-combat U.S. deaths have taken place since May 15, 2009, the day when troops from Obama’s first surge arrived in Afghanistan.

Speaking at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on Dec. 2, 2009, Obama announced the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and said that in July 2011 he would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan “taking into account conditions on the ground.”

Since then, the president has maintained his policy that a drawdown will begin in July 2011, emphasizing that the date will mark the beginning of a transition “process” where tasks will be transferred to the Afghan government and its security forces.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander of U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan, testified before Congress that  the July 2011 drawdown date had not been recommended by him or any other military commander that he was aware of but that he agreed with it.

CNSNews.com’s casualty count is derived primarily from U.S. Defense Department casualty reports, but it also includes information gleaned from the news media

The count includes all U.S. military personnel who died or received fatal wounds in Afghanistan or Pakistan. It does not include U.S. soldiers who died outside of those two countries while supporting military efforts against terrorism under Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes multiple countries.

Gen. David Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week that President Barack Obama’s July 2011 drawdown date for U.S troops in Afghanistan was not proposed by military officials.

Petraeus said that he understood that the “president has to be interested in fiscal considerations, political considerations, diplomatic considerations” in making decisions about withdrawing troops from a war.

Nonetheless, Petraeus said he agreed with the dateline, while adding that a U.S. presence in Afghanistan is necessary for “quite some time.”

At the hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Petraeus, “Was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a [drawdown] date of July 2011?”

Petraeus said, “There was not.”

McCain then said, “There was not – by any military person that you know of?”

Petraeus answered, “Not that I’m aware of.”

In reference to the July 2011 date, Petraeus said, “It was not just for domestic political purposes. It was also meant for audiences in Kabul that we will not be there forever.”

He then added, “But we will be there, presumably for quite some time.”

When questioned by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) about the drawdown date, Petraeus said, “What I have done is restate the policy as it currently exists, senator, and the policy again, and as I stated, I supported and agreed to back last fall to begin a process in July 2011 under which tasks are transferred to Afghan security forces and government officials and a quote ‘responsible drawdown’ of the surge forces begins based to be determined by conditions.”

Petraeus, who is top commander in Afghanistan, said he “was consulted” about the Obama administration’s drawdown date when asked by Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.).

“There’s no question that in the final session that [July 2011 date] was discussed,” Petraeus testified.

LeMieux then asked, “Do you find that the adoption of something like [July 2011] coming from the civilian side, the elected leadership of the country, without being offered by the military, do you find that to be normal based upon the history of this country?”

Petraeus said, “The president has to be interested in fiscal considerations, political considerations, diplomatic considerations, all of that is appropriate. So I don’t find it unusual to have, again, something be inserted that was not from the bottom up.”

Obama first announced his July 2011 drawdown during a speech at West Point Academy on Dec. 2, 2009, saying, “We will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.”

Since then, the president has continued to repeat his July 2011 policy, emphasizing that the date will mark the beginning of a “process” based on ground conditions.

However, Vice President Joe Biden was quoted in “The Promise,” Jonathan Alter’s book on Obama’s first year in office, as saying, “In July of 2011, you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out, bet on it.”

During the hearing, Petraeus said Biden is fully on board with Obama’s July 2011 policy.

Republicans have criticized the Obama administration’s drawdown date, saying, among other things, that it sends mixed messages about U.S. commitment to Afghanistan’s stability.

“Somebody needs to get it straight, without doubt, what the hell we’re going to do come July,” said Graham, “because I think it determines whether or not someone in Afghanistan is going to stay in the fight.”

Graham continued: “This is all not your problem to fix. This is a political problem, because I’m assuming the July deadline did not come from you. You said it didn’t. You agreed to it. But somebody other than you came up with this whole July get out of Afghanistan deadline, and I think it’s all politics. But that’s just me.”

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele says Afghanistan is “a war of Obama’s choosing” and the conflict “is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” comments that drew an immediate rebuke from Republicans and Democrats.

In remarks captured Thursday on camera and posted online, Steele criticized President Barack Obama and his handling of the nine-year-old war begun by Republican President George W. Bush in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“If he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that’s the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right? Because everyone who’s tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed,” Steele said. “And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan.”

Republican officials confirmed Steele made the comments at a Connecticut fundraiser, which was closed to the media. The remarks were caught on camera and posted on the Web.

“This was a war of Obama’s choosing,” Steele said. “This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.”

The United States and allies overthrew Afghanistan’s Taliban government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The war lagged as the United States shifted its focus to Iraq, but Obama shifted the focus to Afghanistan and planned to send 30,000 more troops to the country.

Steele did not say if he agreed with that increase.

Steele’s comments came as Obama’s new chief in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, arrived in the country Friday to take over the war. Obama last week dismissed his previous commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, after he made disparaging comments about his superiors in a Rolling Stone interview.

Steele called the dismissal “very comical” but said it shows the frustration members of the military have with Obama.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse said it was “simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences.”

Conservative Bill Kristol, writing for The Weekly Standard, said Steele should resign.

“There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they’re certainly entitled to make their case,” wrote Kristol, a consistent supporter of the Afghanistan war. “But one of them shouldn’t be the chairman of the Republican Party.”

RNC spokesman Doug Heye said in a statement that Steele “clearly supports our troops but believes that success of the war effort in Afghanistan requires the ongoing support of the American people,” RNC spokesman Doug Heye said in a statement. “The responsibility for building and maintaining that strategy falls squarely on the shoulders of the president.”

For the Washington cognoscenti, the appointment of General David Petraeusmarked the crescendo of President Barack Obama’s Wonderful Week. In firing General Stanley McChrystal, Mr Obama, the ultimate cool cat, was transformed into Mr Angry. The law professor finally became commander-in-chief.

Obama, so the Beltway groupthink goes, turned a lose-lose situation into a political victory by asserting his authority over an insubordinate steely-eyed killer and replacing him with the ultimate warrior-scholar. He showed the doubters he was tough, and he traded up.

How wrong the conventional wisdom can be. Obama’s actions in dragging McChrystal back to Washington and personally sacking him in as dramatic a fashion as possible in fact displayed weakness. They also avoided the real problem – his confused Afghanistan policy and dysfunctional civilian team.

No one would pretend that the profane, juvenile banter of McChrystal and his aides was clever or appropriate, never mind in the presence of an iconoclastic Rolling Stone reporter. The general, a legendary combat leader who engaged in fire fights in Iraq alongside SAS troopers while in his 50s, deserved to be reprimanded.

Inartful and ill-advised as the words were, however, they also spoke to a justifiable deep frustration within the US military in Afghanistan and contained a degree of truth about Obama’s civilian officials that made the famously thin-skinned President decidedly uncomfortable.

McChrystal and his “Team America” vented about Ambassador Karl Eikenberry betraying them with a leak; portrayed special envoy Richard Holbrooke as an egotist in fear of losing his job; joked about Vice President Joe Biden being a bit of a blowhard; and suggested James Jones, National Security Adviser, was an ineffectual relic of the Cold War.

These are hardly controversial opinions – even within the White House. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff and a man whose salty language would make a sailor blush, probably says worse things about his colleagues to a reporter before breakfast on most days of the week.

Team America, of course, was a bit dismissive of Obama himself and that cannot have gone down well with the self-regarding occupant of the Oval Office. Even more difficult to take must have been the warm words they had for Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, who large numbers of Democrats and even many Republicans now wish had prevailed in 2008.

If Obama wants to succeed in Afghanistan, he probably needs to fire Holbrooke and Eikenberry, neither of whom has been able to establish anything like the relationship with President Hamid Karzai that McChrystal painstakingly built up.

The post-McChrystal situation is replete with irony. Obama, who won the Democratic nomination on the back of his anti-war rhetoric, is now doubling down on a war being run by George W Bush’s Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, and Bush’s Iraq commander, Petraeus.

It has not escaped the attention of the anti-war Left that although firing McChrystal was justified as a way of asserting civilian control over the military, the result is the opposite. Petraeus is a much more popular figure than Obama and has deeper ties across the full spectrum of the Washington establishment than any general since Colin Powell (who, incidentally, Obama consulted about firing McChrystal).

The reality is that Petraeus can pretty much do what he wants now. Obama probably wouldn’t sack him if he kneed Biden in the groin. Petraeus, as was his acolyte McChrystal, is rightly sceptical about Obama’s promise to start withdrawing troops from July 2011.

No military commander likes an artificial timetable imposed on him, never mind a nakedly political one designed to suit Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

In getting rid of McChrystal, Obama has also risked hastening the departure of Gates, who vies with his ally Clinton for the title of most effective and respected Cabinet secretary.

Gates (like, another irony, McChrystal) – is beyond reproach in the leaking game in which Holbrooke and Eikenberry, or their ciphers, have engaged. He is notorious for firing senior officers and officials but advised Obama to keep McChrystal.

His reward for that private counsel was to have White House officials brief reporters about it to boost the image of Obama as the take-charge decider.

Little noticed amid the McChrystal kerfuffle was the announcement that Obama’s wunderkind budget director, the nerdy but lusty Peter Orszag (a 41-year-old divorcee, last year he fathered a child out of wedlock with one glamourpuss and became engaged to another), was departing the administration. A prime reason, Orszag has let it be known, has been his inability to get on with Larry Summers, the Holbrooke of the economic team. The feuding between the staffs of Orszag and Summers had made McChrystal and Eikenberry look like best buddies.

So Obama would do well to avoid congratulating himself on winning last week’s news cycle by brutally ending McChrystal’s illustrious career. He has further alienated the broader military constituency and done nothing to curtail the in-fighting among his top foreign policy officials, who are apeing their economic counterparts.

With members of his inner circle like Emanuel and David Axelrod likely to return to Chicago after November’s mid-term elections, Obama could find the White House a very lonely place next year.

Unless you live on the oil-saturated bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, you’re probably well aware that our President, who happens to have skin thinner than that of an Iberian Ribbed Newt, fired General Stanley McChrystal for committing the unpardonable sin: He told the ugly truth about Obama.

Now, before I get flooded with emails about the impropriety of a general criticizing the commander-in-chief, let me remind you that most of you crying “foul” said squat when active duty General Eric Shinseki and other retired generals did that to W and Rummy when they were in office. Yes, I believe instead of howling “off with their heads!” you reveled in the generals going rogue on George. I believe you hypocritical dorks called the Bush dissenters “patriotic truth tellers.”

So, why did McChrystal publicly say that Obama is dealing with things that are, how shall I say, above his pay grade, to a liberal magazine like Rolling Stone? Hell if I know. I’m not bulimic. I can’t read minds.

One possibility is that this is Stanley’s way of repenting to the nation for voting for this nabob. Or perhaps he was simply upholding his oath to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. Who knows?

One thing that’s for certain in the utilization of the Stones mag is that a lot of Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga fans heard from the horse’s mouth that a four-star general, one whom Obama cherry-picked for the war in Afghanistan, one who actually voted for him, now thinks the community organizer has been elevated to a level of incompetence.

Yep, if that intel didn’t go out on a wire like Rolling Stone then the real story of Barack’s ghastly mishandling of Afghanistan would go untold to the non-Fox watchers as McChrystal tumbled under the oncoming Obama bus. Providence made certain that negative info went out to Lefties, uncut … to which I say, sa-weet! That’ll have reverbs at the polls this November.

Y’know, in the grand scheme of things, the Rolling Stone interview might prove to be more strategic than tragic for McChrystal and the war in Afghanistan. McChrystal jumping on the grenade is making BHO and his paramours in the MSM sit up and take notice that they’re not taking notice in regard to this heel-draggin’ conflict in Afghanistan. In addition, I smell a Tea Party tour, a regular spot on Hannity and Bud Lime commercials for Stanley.

I’m sure Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal can empathize with McChrystal as his state’s beaches morph into a Jiffy Lube drip pan while Hussein golfs and does duos with the cute Beatle. Similarly, I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer can equally empathize with the general; she’s not only been blown off by Barack, but Obama’s suing her state for upholding federal laws on immigration.

So, what’re the walk away lessons for me from McChrystal’s McHiccup? Well, it goes something like this:

1. Speaking the truth can be costly.
2. We should grow a pair and speak out against Obama’s fecklessness.
3. Obama may have been able to fire the General for speaking the truth, but he can’t fire America. No, on the contrary, we can “can” his backside and those of his stripe come their respective election days, and we should for the way they have mismanaged all the major issues touching our nation.

When is a timeline not really a timeline? When the President says so. See GITMO, Healthcare, etc…now add Afghanistan.

At a press conference today, President Obama said of his Afghanistan withdrawal timeline, “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us. We said we’d begin a transition phase in which the Afghan government to take more and more responsibility.” Good news for folks who think we ought to fight our wars to win? Guess again.

If the start date for the withdrawal is not such a big deal after all, then why did the President announce one to begin with? Easy. The answer is that it was for domestic political consumption—an implicit promise to his political supporters that Afghanistan would be off the table by the time it came to gear up for the 2012 presidential campaign.

Here is the problem, Mr. President. The enemy gets a vote—and they vote early and often. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, from villages to terrorist hideouts, the message was thatAmericans lack the stomach to stick it out till the job is done. Why would the Pakistani Taliban dispatch a terrorist to kill Americans in Times Square if they didn’t think they could break the back of American resolve?

Winning in Afghanistan is in the vital interests of the United States. We don’t secure vital interests by token efforts, suggesting it is okay to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way for a year—but then we have to take our ball and go home.

No right-thinking strategist would sign up for an open ended commitment to keep troops in Afghanistan—but timelines need to be set based on the situation on the ground, not the political calendar in Washington. You don’t get your allies to stand shoulder to shoulder with you by threatening to abandon them.

If the President really wants to help Gen. Petraeus win the war, he can publicly state “forget the timeline, we will start to bring the troops home when conditions are right.” He could also pledge to give Gen. Petraeus whatever he needs to get the job done.

The man handpicked by President Obama to rescue the flagging American war effort in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, must wage a critical battle on two fronts: Taking on the Taliban while quelling bureaucratic rivalries in Washington that present a serious threat to military morale.

The Pentagon brass joined with members of Congress in universally condemning ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s sharp criticisms of his civilian superiors, which led to his forced resignation. The choice of Petraeus also received widespread bipartisan approval on Capitol Hill.

But several military experts and commentators say disenchantment with how the administration is fighting the Afghanistan war transcends the loose-lipped McChrystal.

Support for Obama among front-line soldiers and officers has dropped precipitously, according to military journalist, author, and former Special Forces soldier Michael Yon.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Yon says while about half of the troops supported Obama during his presidential campaign, lately that’s changed.

“Now I do see that there is a shift away, and I’m talking low level to high, there has been definitely a shift away from Obama,” Yon tells Newsmax. “That much is clear.”

Several analysts believe the McChrystal run-in reflects a growing distance between the Obama administration and some in the military. In part the friction appears to stem from infighting among Obama’s own advisers.

Eric Bates, the executive editor of the Rolling Stone magazine whose article touched off the furor, said McChrystal’s remarks stem from “enormous frustration” that some officials involved in Afghanistan “just don’t get it.”

Bates told the media Tuesday that McChrystal’s comments indicate “deep-seated differences in how to prosecute this war.”

As military analyst and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey told MSNBC: “Yes, I think there is a real substantive issue with the people on the ground in Afghanistan. There are too many free agents rotating around — Ambassador Holbrooke, [Ambassador Karl] Eikenberry, and others. And I think the president has to clarify the chain of command.”

How bad is the bureaucratic in-fighting? The New York Times reported European allies in the war effort are weary of Obama advisers whispering behind backs and sniping at each other.

Bruce O. Riedel, a Brookings Institution senior fellow, tells The Times: “This flap shows once again that [Obama's] team is not pulling together, but is engaging in backbiting.”

In February, national security adviser Gen. James L. Jones reportedly wrote a note to Ambassador Eikenberry, telling him not to worry about his differences with Richard C. Holbrooke, the president’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Using an unsecured channel, Jones indicated Holbrooke would soon be fired.

In the Rolling Stone story, McChrystal’s staff described Holbrooke as “a wounded animal.” One McChrystal aide said: “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

President Obama alluded to the infighting in his remarks announcing that Petraeus would replace McChrystal.

“I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together,” the president warned. “Doing so is not an option, but an obligation. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division.”

It appears division is precisely what Petraeus will have to overcome if he is to succeed in Afghanistan. But the growing divide goes beyond political differences and involves the counterinsurgency strategy that the administration is counting on to prevail.

That strategy is based on winning the hearts and minds of everyday Afghanis by adopting strict rules of engagement – the orders that spell out the methods U.S. fighting personnel are permitted to use when attacked — in order to minimize collateral damage, including civilian casualties.

Yon tells Newsmax that McChrystal was unpopular with his troops for precisely that reason.

“They are not happy with him. They think the rules of engagement are so strict they are costing a lot of lives, which is true,” Yon says.

The journalist and author adds that troop morale in Afghanistan has been plummeting.

“It’s been hurting morale. I’ve never seen morale flag like this before. It’s actually starting to go down. Hopefully we’ll see a turnaround, now that Petraeus is coming onboard,” Yon says.

Obama critic Frank J. Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, tells Newsmax that the U.S. policies in Afghanistan are “in danger of failing.”

“I think the problem … is that we are not pursuing in a coherent way the defeat of our enemies in the war that I call ‘the war for the free world,’ which happens to have a number of different combat theaters, and other theaters of a non-kinetic kind, including here in the United States,” Gaffney tells Newsmax.

“I would start with the fact that the administration has no clarity whatsoever who the enemy even is, let alone how to defeat it,” he adds. “And to the extent it is trying to defeat it, it is doing so in a feckless and half-hearted way.

And that’s what I believe we’re seeing play out in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
The switch to Petraeus comes at a key moment in the war.

“There is a growing doubt in Washington the success of this strategy, whether it’s the right strategy,” Fox News host Chris Wallace reported. “A lot of people are questioning the president’s decision to set this timeline … of July 2011, 13 months from now, and whether that raises issues in Afghanistan among our allies and our enemies about our commitment to this war….”

Despite those reservations, Obama’s choice of Petraeus to replace McChrystal was widely touted by liberal politicians and the media as “a masterstroke” Wednesday.

The left’s embrace of Petraeus seemed curious, considering that Petraeus’ role in the Obama White House had been much-reduced compared to what it was in the Bush era.

Petraeus, rumored to be a potential GOP presidential candidate in 2012, appeared to keep a relatively low profile to avoid bruising other White House egos.

In September 2007, when Petraeus was testifying on the progress of the surge under the Bush administration, the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org group spent $75,000 to run an ad in The New York Times headlined: “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

The controversial ad campaign was widely denounced as a vicious attack on the patriotism of a general credited with implementing the Bush strategy that avoided a serious military setback in Iraq.

Now, Obama’s selection of that same general to lead the war in Afghanistan is widely being heralded as a stroke of genius.

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, a candidate in the 2009 Afghan presidential election, said the July 2011 date set by President Barack Obama for U.S. troops to draw-down from Afghanistan is problematic because it creates a perception of mixed messages about U.S. commitment to the country.

Dr. Abdullah explained that talks about withdrawing troops send confusing messages to the Afghan people, which in turn create the wrong perception about U.S. commitment to a stable Afghanistan.

“In the past few months, the people of Afghanistan received mixed messages,” said Dr. Abdullah at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

“Sometimes the message is already mixed, ‘we’re withdrawing; we’re leaving; yes, it’s not working; democracy in Afghanistan was the wrong proposition right from the beginning, so we shouldn’t have done it,” added Dr. Abdullah.

He continued, “Some of these things are messages [that] are confusing that, as a whole for NATO it has become a crucial test.”

Abdullah further said, “You have a partner in the people of Afghanistan and [and this is] apart from the contributions, financial support and otherwise, but it’s important that you stand by the process so, as a result, the people are empowered then [and] that [the] mission is shortened.”

As for a “timeframe, I don’t think that anybody can give a time schedule,” said Abdullah. “But the people do prefer their own institutions taking responsibility and that’s the wish of the Afghan people. And at the same time we understand we’re not there at the moment.”

He stressed that “some enemies of the process might have perceived it [the July 11 draw-down] differently and will strategize upon it differently.”

At the press conference, CNSNews.com asked Dr. Abdullah, “Do you see a problem with the July 2011 draw-down date?

“Yeah, I think the perception which [it] has created” is a problem, said Dr. Abdullah.

Abdullah, leader of the Afghan political party “Coalition for Hope and Change,” said the intention of the July 2011 date is good but the perception “is very different.”

Before CNSNews.com’s question, another reporter had asked, “I wonder if President Obama’s wish that American forces will start leaving the country in July 2011 – what’s the effect of that on Afghan government and Afghan people? Does that spread some confusion or doubts?”

Abdullah said, “Some of the adversaries of the process, like the Taliban, might have considered it as a withdrawal date rather than a draw-down date, [by] which the commitment will continue, the support will continue, and so on and so forth.”

He added that regardless of the draw-down date, the situation is “business as usual” for the Afghan government.

On Dec. 2 at West Point Academy, Obama described his strategy for Afghanistan, saying, “And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months [July 2011], our troops will begin to come home.”

Obama also said, “We will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.”

The day after Obama outlined that strategy, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, criticized the president for setting a date for when troops are to start drawing-down from Afghanistan.

“A withdrawal date only emboldens al Qaeda and the Taliban while dispiriting our Afghan partners, and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight,” McCain said on Dec. 3, 2009.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at that hearing. They defended Obama’s decision to set a draw-down date and stressed that when the time comes, it will depend upon the military and political conditions on the ground.

On Dec. 15, when speaking at the conservative Heritage Foundation, McCain foreshadowed Dr. Abdullah’s concern that the July 2011 date creates the wrong perception.

McCain said: “We have announced a date, divorced from conditions on the ground, when we will start to withdraw our troops. It doesn’t matter whether we call it a ‘cliff’ or a ‘ramp’ or anything else. It’s still an exit sign.”

McCain continued, “It sends the wrong signal to our friends, who fear – and not without reason – that the United States will abandon them before they can defend and sustain themselves. It sends the wrong signal to our enemies, who will use this July 2011 date to undermine and intimidate our partners.”

Furthermore, he said, “And it sends the wrong signal to all in the region who are now hedging their bets – Pakistani generals reluctant to cut ties with the Taliban, or Afghan civilians who ask our troops, ‘Are you staying this time?’ On this issue, the administration and I will have to agree to disagree.”

This weekend, President Obama will skip Memorial Day services at Arlington National Cemetery, and instead he will take his family to Chicago for rest and relaxation. The gesture has rankled many on the right and caused the left to swing into full ‘defend Obama’ mode. However, the fact remains that during a time of war, it is extraordinary that the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces would choose not to be at Arlington on this solemn occasion.

First, it must be said that the president is not skipping out on his official duties entirely. At the start of the weekend, the president will travel to Louisiana to survey the response to oil spill; only his second trip to the region since the disaster over a month ago. And on Monday, the president will deliver remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, IL. In between these duties he will spend a “casual weekend with friends” and then fly home in time to make a White House tribute to Paul McCartney on Wednesday evening.

So what’s the big deal? As leftist columnist David Corn writes: “[D]oes it matter if Obama throws some leaves on a tomb?” Well, apparently to liberals, it does not matter and to Corn, even wondering why the president would miss the occasion in itself dishonors lost soldiers. Seriously. Somehow, wanting the president to appropriately honor the troops who paid the ultimate price is chalked up as “political ammo.”

The truth is that no president has missed the Arlington ceremony on Memorial Day since 1992. That year, former President Bush attended a ceremony in Maine while campaigning for re-election. In 1992 our nation was not at war. President Bush was himself a decorated war hero in World War II, risking life and limb to complete bombing missions in the Pacific and losing crewmates in the battles. His commitment to honoring his brothers-in-arms was never in doubt. So comparing 1992 to 2010 is not exactly an apples to apples debate.

On the other hand, President Obama has demonstrated time and time again an unwillingness to fully support our troops whether through resources or through rhetoric. He gave a commencement address in 2008 with the theme of ’serving your country’ on that Memorial Day weekend, and did not mention serving in the military once. His proposed budgets reduce defense spending as a percentage of GDP to pre-9/11 levels. And this White House is uncomfortable even using the term ‘war on terror’ which is the cause that many of those who sacrificed their lives committed themselves to in the first place.

This is not a president who is automatically viewed as a friend of the military, and he has reinforced this view himself, time and time again. In December 2009, the president traveled to West Point (what MSNBC’s Chris Matthew’s called the “enemy camp” that night) to address the ongoing wars and his strategic plans. He used the speech, which was broadcast to all bases overseas, to attack the premise of the Iraq War and his predecessor. He never used the words “win” or “victory” but talked of “conclusions.” And he highlighted his own sacrifice of reading and writing letters and reasserted the ridiculous notion that he was “repairing” relations with the Muslim world.

This was not a morale boost for cadets that evening, or for the country. It did reinforce the idea that President Obama is a reluctant Commander in Chief, who would prefer focus on domestic government growth. It is speeches like these that make conservatives take pause when the president chooses golfing with friends over attending Arlington in a time of war to honor our fallen troops.

To indifferent liberals, this solemn remembrance is merely throwing “leaves on a tomb” and this controversy is the manufactured delusions of “conservative wingnuts.” The Democratic Party’s sister organization ’Media Matters’ has been full throated in trying to turn this controversy around on the president’s detractors. But to veterans, and their families, regardless of political beliefs, this is a symbolic break in tradition that can only be viewed as casual indifference.

Sending Vice President Biden, the man who told Brussels two weeks ago that it, not Washington, should hold the title of ‘capital of the free world’, in his place does not excuse his absence, and will likely give little comfort to those stricken families who expected to hear from their Commander in Chief. President Obama shouldn’t just be at Arlington on Memorial Day, he should want to be there.

UPDATE: As Robert points out in the comments, we failed to point out that President George W. Bush also missed Arlington’s Memorial Day ceremonies in 2002, when he joined Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi, Secretary of State Colin Powell and a bipartisan congressional delegation for services at the American cemetery in Normandy, France, honoring those who paid the ultimate sacrifice on D-Day. Certainly an occasion that was warranted. You can read his remarks here.

UPDATE 2: Many commenters have rightly pointed out that the president will attend services at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, as also mentioned above. It is true that the heroes laid to rest in this cemetery are equally deserving of presidential attention. However, is President Obama attending services here because of the honor of this particular location, or the geographical proximity to his other plans? The memorial at Arlington serves as a national celebration, which is why past presidents have made special efforts to attend, when possible. We appreciate your comments and debate. Thanks for reading.

President Obama went to Arlington Cemetery to lay the wreath last year, but this year Obama’s handing the wreath to Plugs and heading off to the more welcoming political climes of Chicago:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to spend a long holiday weekend in Chicago.

The White House says Obama and his family will travel to their hometown on Thursday and stay through the weekend. It will be their first trip back home since a visit for Valentine’s Day weekend in February 2009.

On Monday, Obama is scheduled to participate in a Memorial Day ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Ill.

In Obama’s absence, Vice President Joe Biden will participate in the customary wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington.

Obama will however make it back to Washington in time next week tohonor Paul McCartney, who has sacrificed so much for the freedoms we enjoy.

Boy, I’m starting to think that West Point speech wasn’t from the heart.

Update: Obama will alter vacation plans slightly and travel to the Gulf on Friday in a desperate attempt to “plug the damn hole” in his approval ratings.