After reporting that "A senior administration official [says] the U.S. transition from Afghanistan is the most important message the White House will be telegraphing as it moves into the general election," The Hill proceeds to fashion one of the most cryptic sentences it has ever been my bafflement to read:
Yet Obama’s message also carries risks, most notably that he has put his personal political goals ahead of ensuring a successful outcome in Afghanistan.
Ahem. What risks? Is one, perhaps, that in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll "only 30 percent of respondents [say] it has been worth fighting"; or that "more Republicans and GOP-leaning independents oppose the war than support it, with 55 percent saying it has not been worth the costs"? Or is that even many Republican pols are praying for an easy escape and soft landing, as Senators Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn are vividly straightforward about, in their Hill quotes.
Naturally, those auditioning for GOP veepdom to the wretchedly clueless, neocon Mitt Romney are putting their "personal political goals" ahead of American lives and our national security interests, such as Marco Rubio, who feigns that he's "concerned that somehow this timeline is an artificial one and posed for political reasons more than for policy reasons." Good boy, Marco. Yet even he, cognizant of the aforementioned polling, adds: "But let’s see what’s in that [withdrawal] agreement."
Finally, The Hill makes reference to that most cosmic of indefinable obscurities--that President Obama (again, for spider-webbed reasons of political skulduggery, I guess) just might skimp on "ensuring a successful outcome in Afghanistan."
Is that supposed to be some kind of sick joke? A taunt? A blind reaffirmation of American triumphalism through exceptional firepower? Or perhaps it's merely a throwaway line. I really can't say. It's that cryptic.