Who is the source of this leak?

Well, now, that's the thing, isn't it? Given the pattern of leaking stuff as a trial balloon that we have seen from the Clinton administration, it seems logical to assume that precisely the same thing is going on from this administration.

Steve2

Steve2

Compromise, on the other hand, is all about including only those portions of everyone's ideas that are generally agreeable to the whole, and that do not conflict with the other designs being adopted.

Committees operate on the inclusion of desires. Compromise is based on the exclusion of desires. Since the portion you quotes makes clear that there was an exclusion of desires in Obama's plan, I think it's fair to say it was designed by compromise, not by committee.

We would be better served knowing who passed this "information" on. I have my own opinion about the way forward in Afghanistan...that said, this story is about "how the big decisions get made by the guys who make the big bucks". Color me not in awe.

Two things I find remarkable, that everyone was in agreement to narrow the objectives. The second, and my guess for the deep throat of this piece is the "star" of the show, Joe Biden. Or, one of his myrmidons.

A lot of people have commented favorably on the way Obama makes decisions, basically saying that he listens to all of the opposing sides and then makes up his mind. It's still too early in my opinion to judge whether or not this is accurate, but I'd say on some major legislation like the stimulus bill he most certainly didn't display that type of leadership. We ended up with the typical 'compromises' which are actually more like bribes ("how much will it take to buy off three GOP senators?", not "What ideas supported by conservatives would potentially make this a better bill?")

It remains to be seen whether or not Obama exercised real leadership AFTER listening to the various views, or if he figured out what he needed to placate each member of the team and then compiled the results.

Tano: The camel image (I've also seen elephant) is just a metaphor- no one is literally saying that these critters were designed by committee, which is why the animal itself isn't as nonviable as a committee designed plan usually is.

The camel is a marvelously well-adapted organism for its environment. In fact, putting a "well-designed" horse in a desert environment is a pretty good metaphor for the type of disaster one gets when one relies on a Republican to strategize a war.

First off, the story seems to say that Obama listened to a range of differing advice on the matter and ended up formulating a policy that reflects the strengths of each perspective - a "compromise" in the sense that no one advisor's vision was implemented in whole.

This is very different from "policy by committee". It is, in fact, exactly the process that one would hope would be followed. You would prefer that the president ignored all his advisors? Or chose one who would be seen as completely correct, and the others ignored? IS that your vision of effective leadership?