


I refer to the way in which Afghans, Pakistanis, our NATO allies and, indeed, Americans will perceive the president's decision. In Afghanistan, shifting perceptions can be as important as the numbers of troops.


But -- for reasons I'll detail -- many players in the Afghan drama will believe the decision was propelled by political weakness. That perception could make it harder -- and much more dangerous -- to reduce troop levels during the coming three years.

Why so? The U.S. troop "surge" 18 months ago was rooted as much in psychology as in military needs. The goal was to reverse the Taliban's momentum. That meant changing the widespread perception -- among ordinary Afghans as well as militants -- that the Taliban was inevitably destined to win.


To some extent the momentum had indeed shifted. The Taliban had been pushed back from southern Afghanistan.

But Obama's decision to front-load the pullback of U.S. troops may toss crucial psychological gains away.



And why should the Taliban be interested in negotiations if the military pressure is decreasing, giving militants a psychological boost? Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said talks with the Afghan Taliban are "necessary," but the Taliban are now likely to make tougher demands.



What the president should have explained is that much remains to be done before 2014 to cement the past year's gains and ensure Afghanistan doesn't relapse into a jihadi haven. Instead -- pushed by Republicans and Democrats alike -- he gave a psychological lift to Afghan militants who were hurting.
