A couple things to note in Mitt Romney's Politico op-ed hitting Barack Obama on Afghanistan today.
1. It's another obvious move to further bolster his cred as a foreign policy expert; not just an economic whiz kid.
2. But here's what's more important, and the key sentence framing the entire piece.
[His approach to Afghanistan represents] the classic failing of people without real leadership experience: the inability to do what is necessary to achieve one’s objective.
It's at that point that Romney's priming the reader for the article's conclusion and its 2012 implications.
During my career in business and government, and in running the Olympics, I made many instructive mistakes and learned the lessons that come with experience.
Obama is making those mistakes in his first real leadership position, and because that position is president of the United States, the consequences of his mistakes are sobering. The lives of our soldiers, the war against violent jihadism and the future of millions of Afghans are in the balance.
A lot of people say Mitt's success as a candidate will be determined by the economy's success in 2012. Maybe.
But by casting the debate in a broader, more nebulous context (leadership), he gives himself more room. The argument isn't just driven by results; it's also procedural.
This way, he can cede fundamental economic indicators if they're good, and take the battle to whatever other issues worry voters.
In effect, Romney's trying to win the leadership war. Not just the war in Afghanistan.
