This is some seriously shallow analysis:
When Obama plays the hawk he also wins friends on the center and the right. We like our presidents to act “against type” — in other words, for Republicans to use carrots with our enemies, and for Democrats to use sticks. It suggests moderation and pragmatism: a president who isn’t a prisoner of ideology. So, for Obama, the act of being hawkish — almost regardless of how or where — encourages the image of a steadfast guardian of the Republic.
And presidents have more credibility when they deviate from expectations. After all, if a perceived dove like Obama favors escalation in Afghanistan, then perhaps it really is necessary.
Is Obama a hawk? Is he a hawk like John McCain? Is he “playing” a hawk?
What’s true is that the left would not be quiet about the escalation of the war in Afghanistan if a Republican were in office. The left would not be quiet about civil liberties if a Republican were in office. On some security related issues it does seem to add legitimacy that presidents of both parties feel they are necessary.
But, mostly what we have are a bunch of bedwetting politicians who are petrified of getting blamed for not doing enough to prevent a mass-casualty terrorist attack. It’s not about hawks and doves. It’s about guts, and it’s about priorities. Obama can’t even close Gitmo because of the bedwetting. But at least he’s trying, and that’s not something a hawk would do.
I wouldn’t call him a dove or a hawk. He’s the leader of a country that can’t stand to be made uncomfortable for two minutes.
