The single most damning story about President Obama so far is one we know courtesy of his national security adviser, Jim Jones. Visiting the newly installed military commanders in Afghanistan in late June, Jones told General Stanley McChrystal that if he requested more troops any time soon, Obama would have a “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” (i.e., “What the f–“) moment. Jones then, in an interview, made the claim—denied by everyone else involved—that military leaders had agreed that when the president earlier sent 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, “there would be a year from the time the decision was made before they would ever come back and ask for any more.”

Okay. Jones is in way over his head. And, we gather, he’ll likely be gone by Christmas. But it’s still a remarkable statement by the president’s national security adviser. Afghanistan is a war Obama supported repeatedly as a candidate. One of his first acts as president was to recommit to success in the struggle. Yet Jones was willing to portray his boss, both privately and publicly, as timid and fearful of tough decisions.

This may be the most damning, but not the only, indication that the president doesn’t have his heart in this. There’s the aversion to persusing “victory.” And the leaking game over troop levels and various options also suggests the “do what it takes” sentiment is not in full flower. A robust commitment to military victory does not come naturally to Obama.

This has perversely encouraged the “out of Afghanistan” set on the Right. If Obama’s not serious, then we have to leave, they pronounce. But that’s what the debate is about now—to see if the president can be encouraged and supported to do the right thing. There will be time enough to quibble and, yes, condemn if he fails to fulfill his responsibilities as commander in chief. But it seems like a rigged game to complain that the president is insufficiently resolute—and then egg him on to be less resolute.

And if the neo-isolationists on the Right think there is some political upside to banding together with the far Left to undermine support for the war on terror, they should reconsider. There is little political support among conservative voters for throwing in the towel on the war on terror—wherever it occurs. (Ask Ron Paul if you doubt it.) And moreover, all Americans (even those souring on the war now) will be none too pleased if there is an ignoble retreat and a disastrous aftermath. And they may care who counseled that course of action.

Sometimes good politics and good policy coincide. This is one of those instances.