In his remarks to the nation last night on the way forward in Afghanistan,  the leadership style of President Obama was on full view. He presented a clear rational position, addressing immediate concerns with precision and subtlety, placing a simple decision about the pace of troop withdrawals in a larger historical context. It was rhetorically elegant. It was, from a strictly formal point of view, a satisfying speech. It was substantively, though, challenging, concerning immediate military, political and economic calculations.

I watched the address having earlier in the week attended a local organizing meeting of “Organizing for America” (which will soon again become “Obama for America”). The attendees included those who are realistically pleased with Obama’s Presidency, and those who were once enthusiastic, but are now skeptical. I thought about both the skeptics and the realists watching the speech.

An anti-war activist was particularly concerned about Obama’s war policies. To his mind, Obama has continued Bush’s approach, with variations on a deeply problematic theme. While he had listened carefully during the campaign to Barack Obama, as the candidate promised to withdraw from the bad war in Iraq so that we could fight the good fight in Afghanistan, he has still been disappointed by that war’s escalation. He predicted that Obama would announce a minuscule reduction of forces. I recall: 5,000 this summer and 10,000 in a year. He didn’t believe that a real change in direction of an overly militarized foreign policy would be forthcoming.

The announced troop reductions more than double my neighbor’s expectation. But I suspect that he is not satisfied. After all, the announced withdrawal of 33,000 troops by the end of next summer will still leave twice as many troops in Afghanistan than at the beginning of the Obama administration. The Congressional Democrats who are criticizing Obama’s decision are representing broad public judgment that enough is enough in Afghanistan. I should add that I share this judgment.

There were of course no strong opponents of the President at our meeting. Although it is noteworthy that the first meeting I went to in support of Obama near my home in 2007 was hosted by a Republican who was not only fed up with the Presidency of George W. Bush, but also enchanted by the Obama magic. Be that as it may, had there been Republicans at our meeting, their response to the President’s speech would likely have been muted, as was the Republican response on the central political stage.

Generally, the dominant Republican line was that Obama didn’t listen to the Generals, and that he is too aggressively withdrawing, not sufficiently supporting the troops, threatening to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. But Republicans are far from unanimous in this judgment. Notably, two candidates in the Republican race to replace Obama, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, are calling for a more rapid withdrawal than the President proposed.

Yet, there is the question about the military soundness of the withdrawal. The active military will soldier on, as Admiral Mullen indicated in his testimony to Congress today. They will accept their orders and work to achieve their mission. Yet, it is pretty clear that this was a decision that they do not think was ideal, wanting more troops for a longer period of time as indicated in a powerful op. ed. piece by Robert Kagan this afternoon in the Washington Post. Its title provocatively summarized its argument “Military Leaders Know Obama’s Decision is a Disaster.” Kagan argues, along with many others, that the decision to withdraw 33,000 troops by the end of next summer, a few months before the elections, is a raw political move, having no military justification. And he also judges that this is a political calculation that could backfire, “If the war is going badly in the summer and fall of 2012, it will be because of the decision the president made this week.” And, Obama will pay politically.

Obama has again positioned himself in the center, trying to please his base while still appealing to the broad public. And the instant punditry seemed to agree, at least as of last night, that he was likely to get the worst of both worlds. He is trying to satisfy the broad desire of Americans to end our longest war and to focus our nation building energies on our own country, answering the call of the nation’s mayors to end our wars abroad so that we can address our pressing domestic problems, while properly defending the nation against security threats. He is in danger of satisfying no one in his decision. And as the cliché goes: “only time will tell” how unsuccessful his move will be.

At this point, I think about the realists at the local organizing meeting, me among them. At the meeting there were concerns expressed about the health care law. He was too soft in his bargaining, compromised too readily, got much less than he could have. But on the other hand, the realist majority realized that this reform was a major achievement.  Great and powerful presidents and congresses didn’t achieve this, while the leadership of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid did. With the President’s leadership, there was also a significant, if insufficient, stimulus package, financial reform and changed position in the regard, standing and leadership of the United States in the larger world. Each of these accomplishments in the short term looks insufficient, but imagining what our situation would be like without them, at least for these pro-Obama partisans, makes it clear not only who they will vote for, but also who they will work for, with enthusiasm. Each of these marks a long term trajectory that is quite different than if they had not been enacted. The long view underscores the nature of these accomplishments and also I think the significance of yesterday’s decision and speech.

I repeat what I have written a number of times already in my DC posts. Obama is a committed centrist, dedicated to changing the nature of the center in a progressive fashion. In this case, he is working to demilitarize, or more precisely diminish the military emphasis of, our foreign policy, and to making it more multilateral. And he knows that this must be accomplished step by step. Thus the key passage in his speech in my opinion was when he explained his centrist vision.

“Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America’s engagement around the world.  Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face.  Others would have America over-extended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.

We must chart a more centered course.  Like generations before, we must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events.  But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute.  When threatened, we must respond with force –- but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas.”

Withdraw from wild adventures, as quickly as is possible, serving national interests. Engage the world with others as a matter of principle. Don’t overextend, but don’t bury heads in the sand. President Obama is clearly attempting to change the direction of American global engagements, and he said so last night.

I suspect the realists at our Obama meeting were pleased with this, as I am. But I should add, I am also critical and skeptical about the nature of American power. I am more critical than Barack Obama is about the role the United States has played in global affairs. But then again, I am a professor, writing for this webzine, while he is a political leader of the super power. And Max Weber had it right. Politics and scholarship are different vocations.