In fund raising appeals and in editorials, President Obama is being criticized for delays in making a decision on the way forward in Afghanistan. I don’t criticize him on this front.
My more cynical self tells me that the President’s delay in reaching a decision on Afghanistan is tied to his push to pass health care reform. It is easier for the President to deal with one issue at a time. Political capital will be used up in any decision on Afghanistan. In the Senate, the President only has a one-vote margin in favor of his version of health care reform. If he proposes an increase in troops in Afghanistan then some of the more liberal Senators who are already disappointed that the health care bill does not include a robust public option or even more radical reforms or who are upset about the anti-abortion language in the bill may also be outraged at an escalation in the war in Afghanistan. They may be less susceptible to arm twisting if they feel they have been on betrayed health care reform, abortion rights, and war policy. Any decision on Afghanistan may weaken the President’s influence to pass health care. My less cynical self takes the President at his word. He wants to consider all the options, get the advice of a lot of people and make a correct decision.
What decision the President should make, I don’t know. Afghanistan seems like a no-win situation. I do not see how it can turn out well. I see no good way forward or good way out. Any decision has peril.
To remake Afghan society and turn the nation into a functioning well governed democracy seems virtually impossible. That is too lofty of a goal. To even attempt it would take at least a ten-year commitment, many more than the proposed 40,000 troops that are being requested now and untold treasure. To withdraw without leaving a stable government behind that is capable of defending itself would return Afghanistan into a safe haven for Al Qaeda and a launching ground for terror, and our defeat would inspire and encourage our enemies.
There are various options between these two above choices obviously but no good options. What we have been doing and are currently doing is obviously not working. The country is becoming less secure; not more secure. Any decision the President makes will probably be the least bad choice, not a good choice. It seems like a hopeless cause. We are fighting in a country that has only an 11% literacy rate, where opium production is the primary source of revenue, where tribal loyalty trumps nationalism and the terrain is inhospitable.
The Karsi government is corrupt, it hardly functions and the Afghan Army may terrorize the local population more than the Taliban. I read one story recently that said the US had to patrol with the Afghan Army, or at the first opportunity instead of pursuing Taliban, the Army would set up makeshift road blocks to shake down travelers.
While General McChrystal, commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, has told President Obama that he needs 40,000 more troops if the country is to be stabilized, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a retired Army general and former commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, is objecting to any increase in troop level saying that additional troops would be unwise because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government. (read more)
I have little confidence in and respect for President Obama. I wish someone else was calling the shots. Nevertheless, we only have one President and Commander-in-Chief at a time and Mr. Obama is that person. He has a tough decision to make. I think he is correct to push for an exit strategy and a clarification of our goals before agreeing to a 40,000 increase in troop strength. I hope that in desperation he does not simply split the difference between various options and send 20,000 more troops and kick the can of hard choices down the road.
The holding pattern we are in now may be no worse than whatever decision is eventually made. So, Mr. President, take all the time you need to make the best decision; dither on.
Top Stories
