Afghanistan: It’s not just about “more troops.”
R.J. Matson/Post-Dispatch
Americans are being ill-served by the nature of the debate over President Barack Obama’s pending decision about the future of America’s efforts in Afghanistan.
No matter what you may have heard on talk radio or cable news, or read on your favorite left-wing or right-wing blog, this is much more complicated than whether the United States sends more troops to Afghanistan or begins heading for the exit.
This is not about abandoning the war on terrorism, as some on the right would have it, or getting involved in another Vietnam, as some critics on the left have charged. Nor is the Afghanistan debate about a “Washington war of appeasement,” as Fox News was saying Tuesday, nor a smackdown between personalities, as much as cable news loves such feuds.
No, Afghanistan is its own complicated mess; understanding the nation’s options requires not loud voices espousing simplistic solutions, but minds capable of nuanced thought.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has such a mind. Two weeks ago, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan delivered a 66-page report to the president on military options in Afghanistan. When a copy of the report was leaked to The Washington Post, most people never got beyond the headline, “General calls for more troops.”
The general did say “(i)nadequate resources will likely result in failure,” which translates as “send more troops.” But in the very next sentence, he said, “However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced,” which translates as “more troops alone won’t get it done.”
The new troops would have to get out of their bunkers and armored vehicles, the general said. They would have to stop taking the war to the Taliban enemy in rural regions, moving into populated areas to live and work among the Afghan people, leaving themselves more vulnerable to attack and higher casualties.
Most ominously, even with a new strategy and a possible “surge” of 40,000 new troops — equal to two more of the Army’s 10 combat divisions — Gen. McChrystal warned that success would depend on at least two factors out of the military’s control: Transforming the corrupt Afghan government and turning the feckless Afghan army and police into viable fighting forces.
The president, understandably, is loath to commit 40,000 more troops — most of whom are tired and worn down from repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan — to a nation-building effort that might not succeed and that would cost tens of billions of dollars a year in the process. Neither is he willing for the United States to undertake this mission without significantly more help from its NATO allies, perhaps even Russia.
But Mr. Obama also knows he can’t leave Afghanistan to its own devices without creating more problems for neighboring Pakistan, which has nuclear arms and a nervous nuclear-armed neighbor in India.
Gen. McChrystal, understandably, is impatient because he knows that what he’s doing now isn’t working. Mr. Obama may be trying, as he often does, to find a middle ground in what he has called “the war of necessity.” Mr. Obama rightly prefers that his commanders keep their impatience to themselves.
This is not just about more troops. It’s about how long we want to be Afghanistan, and what we do when we get there, and what it will cost in lives and treasure, and what if doesn’t work. This is worth taking the time to get right.
In my living room we would say, “take care of business or get off the pot.”
Unfortunately, Obama is not a leader and is doing neither. We might as well surrender to the Taliban so we can buy health insurance for everyone.
As usual, the PD editorial board has it all wrong. The wrong premise begins because it swallows hook, line and sinker the Administrations’s whining about a ‘new strategy’. Bull……that new strategy was spelled out last March by Obama and he hired the General to run it and begin with telling the Administration “tactically’ how to achieve it. The general comes back with his shopping list, and NOW, Obama is getting weak in the knees because he didn’t have the experience or knowledge to understand the cost of his strategy. Face it, Obama used Afganistan as a ‘get elected’ tool and now is looking for a way to through it under the bus like other things and people his has used to get to his goal. We are watching a selfish, greedy, narcissist in action……..and the price is getting higher every day………..pray for Afganistan people. The bus is rolling.
> the nation’s options requires not loud voices espousing simplistic solutions,
> but minds capable of nuanced thought.
As opposed to Iraq, where the Post-Dispatch and other Bush haters proudly cheered on Cindy Sheehan and her ilk, as they spit on our President and denigrated our military. My, how things have changed.
Nick, did you notice that the PD FP “forgot” to report that Cindy Sheehan got arrested yesterday protesting in front of the White House? Amazing what a difference a “D” makes after the president’s name.
The facts are we will not be secure from terrorists as long as we permit certain elements into this hemisphere. The same holds for our border with Mexico we will not be safe from Mexican gangsters as long as we have an open border with Mexico. So why do we continue to allow these elements into the United States? The answer is foreign trade. We have given our jobs to Socialist enities like China, India, and Mexico. About one sixth of the United States in now below the poverty line. Some 78% of earnings go to just 40% of the households leaving the majority to scramble for a meager 22%. In other words the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the majority. Here in the United States they have done so with slave labor from Socialist Countries like India, Mexico, and China. The so called BRIC countries now being tauted as economic powers are Socialist, India is socialist, Brazil in socialist, and China is socialist. India and Brazil want to purchase Russsian fighter jets and deploy them in this Hemisphere. The perils are many and it is the fault the GOP. We need to cut imports and restrict exports also we need to disburse generous benefits to our people so that they have a real stake in this country. If we continue to go down this socialist road supported by the GOP we will end up in global war.
“This is worth taking the time to get right.” Because he’s sooooooo much smarter than that dummy Bush. Kinda tough spot you Dems have found yourselves in. The Afghan war was “The Right War” and the dummy Bush “took his eye off the ball”. Now that you can’t sit on the sidelines and Monday Morning General it ain’t so easy is it?
It’s real simple. Either the President meant what he said, or he was less than honest again. He either listens to the Generals in charge of this war, or he listen’s to San Fran Nan and “The war is lost” Harry.
The War in Afghanistan has long been overlooked and I believe that it will end up being the most complicated conflict the United States has been in since Vietnam. The problems in Afghanistan are numerous, and of course, they are the United States’ problems to solve, aren’t they? Let’s face it: Afghanistan is a disjointed nation run by corrupt government officials who can’t even control their own borders and tribal factions. The Taliban has run wild for far too long and we are not getting the needed support from Pakistan. In short, this is a huge mess. The easiest thing for the US to do is to pull the plug and let the Taliban take over. I remember that the Commies did that in the late 80’s and then Mr. Bin Laden set up shop. We (the US) can’t let that happen. We owe it to ourselves to kick the crap out of the Taliban and let the people of Afghanistan know that we are on their side and we have their best interests at heart and I’m not talking about Democracy, I’m talking about human rights. We can’t feed the people of Afghanistan Democracy if they’re not willing to eat and digest it. Only time will tell if Obama has the stones to complete the mission at hand or turn his tail and run away from the problem. If that happens, then what does he give up on next?
Well, it’s a shame we wasted $2.5 trillion dollars and 5,000 lives in Iraq.
I’m just glad that Obama is getting the opinions of civilians-Senators, instead of listening to his generals. Perhaps General Pelosi and Captain Reid have some better ideas. Obama continues to not surprise me.
We cant afford it anymore. Bring them home. The dem’s won the mandate in 2006 to stop this war but lacked the guts. At some point all of our debt incurred policing the world along with of the rest of the wasteful government spending will turn our Benjamin’s into wall paper.