Much has been written about Bob Woodward's revelation that President Obama's 8 month strategic review of the Afghan war and his six page presidential order (as he and Biden called it) granting the military 30,000 soldiers for a one year surge designed to"degrade" Taliban capabilities. Nor was the deadline supposed to be flexible. Obama told military leaders,"In 2010, we will not be having a conversation about how to do more. I will not want to hear, 'We're doing fine, Mr. President, but we'd be better if we just do more.'"

The question arises, why has the military leaders sign on to a strategy instead of quitting en mass as Obama and his men feared they just might do?

Because Woodward reveals, Obama threatened them with an immediate withdrawal. He repeatedly told them that the only alternative were 11,000 trainers.

General Petraeus may have agreed with special envoy Richard Holbrook that the plan won't work but he hoped to live to fight another day. After all, they probably decided, buying time is preferable to immediate defeat and that would have been the alternative offered by the new president.

Woodward writes that Obama told him that his decisions are going to be based on his judgment of whether an action is going to make the country stronger or weaker. 80% of the public has since concluded and I concur that he has succeeded in making the country weaker, much weaker.

To be honest, I cannot see how America's enemies cannot read this book with glee. It presents them with a timely account of the American strategic thinking in addition to informing them that they are dealing with a most political and haughty strategic ignoramus.

Oh, yes, Woodward also reveals that the CIA record of being wrong has not been broken. They missed the direct involvement of the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) in the Mumbai bombing. Their analysis led President Bush to tell the Indians that the atrocity was perpetrated by rogue ISI. Next time the Indians will know better than believe in the quality of CIA information.