The hand Obama should play
WASHINGTON — The more President Barack Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.
It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.
The cost of indecision is growing every day. The United States and its people, the allies who have contributed their own troops to the struggle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the Afghans and their government are waiting impatiently, while the challenge is getting worse.
When Obama became commander in chief, his course of action seemed clear. He was bent on early withdrawal from Iraq and an increase in resources and emphasis on winning in Afghanistan -- the struggle he repeatedly called "a war of necessity."
He sent 21,000 more troops to hold it together through the Afghan election, and named two new generals, Stanley McChrystal to run the war, and Karl Eikenberry to manage the politics and reconstruction from the ambassador's office in Kabul.
McChrystal came up with a new plan of battle, emphasizing protection of population centers and requiring up to 40,000 more troops. Eikenberry, we now know, balked, giving voice to the widespread fear that Hamid Karzai, the carry-over winner of the election the ambassador helped arrange, was too weak and corrupt to govern the country effectively, even with an enlarged American force keeping order.
Their disagreement was echoed and amplified throughout the Obama administration. The secretaries of defense and state came down on McChrystal's side; the vice president and many on the White House political staff with Eikenberry.
The president, notwithstanding his earlier rhetoric and actions, has hesitated to resolve the issue. Obama needs to remember what Clark Clifford said about the president he served, Harry Truman. Clifford, one of Truman's closest advisers, said the president "believed that even a wrong decision was better than no decision at all."
While Obama deliberates, his party in Congress shows increasing reluctance to make an all-out commitment to the war effort. The chairmen of two key Senate committees, Foreign Relations and Armed Services, are arguing for retraining Afghan troops -- if they can even be found -- and turning over more of the burden of fighting to them.
Meantime, events in Afghanistan support McChrystal's prediction that delay in expanding the American troop commitment will almost certainly lead to gains for the Taliban and greater risk for U.S. and allied troops.
In all this dithering, it's easy to forget a few fundamentals. Why are we in Afghanistan? Not because of its own claim on us but because the Taliban rulers welcomed the al-Qaeda plotters who hatched the destruction of 9/11. The Taliban also oppressed their own people, especially women, but we sent troops because Afghanistan was the hide-out for the terrorists that attacked our country.
We knew governing Afghanistan would never be easy. It had resisted outside forces through the ages, and its geography, its tribal structure, its absence of a democratic tradition and its poverty all argued that once we went in, it would be hard to get out.
But George W. Bush said -- and Obama seemed to agree -- that withdrawal was not and is not an option.
That imperative is reinforced by the presence of Pakistan, a shaky nuclear-armed power across a porous mountain border. If the Taliban comes back in Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda cells already in Pakistan will operate even more freely -- and nuclear weapons could fall into the most dangerous hands.
Given all of this, I don't see how Obama can refuse to back up the commander he picked and the strategy he is recommending. It may not work if the country truly is ungovernable. But I think we have to gamble that security will bring political progress -- as it has done in Iraq.
Obama did not believe that could happen there. But given what he inherited, and given what he has done himself so far, I think he has no choice but to play out that hand. If we can't afford to lose, then play to win.
Nov 18, 2009 at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
I laugh in the face of people that criticize Obama. He's been in office less than a year. Remember, it took Republicans how many years to screw up the $ surplus that was in place with B. Clinton? All the Bush eras screwed us. Reganomics screwed us.
Who is REALLY running this country? The role of President of the USA is a puppet with it's strings being yanked by Democrats, Republicans, lobbyists, committees, States, counties, municipalities. The President is a face everyone can point a finger at and blame.
Nov 17, 2009 at 9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
In Viet nam we were fighting communism, what are we fighting in Afghanistan? It`s a civil war, the US does NOT consider the Taliban to be terrorists. Al-Queda is gone from there, and probably not welcomed back. Why are we there anymore?
Nov 17, 2009 at 7:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ignorance must be bliss for all the "Conservatives" on here. How, in just one year, do you expect the Obama administration to undo all the wrongs done in the eight years of the Bush regime?
Nov 17, 2009 at 7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
DIGriz, I don`t see Obama pulling a Nixon, but from the statements coming out of the White House, they are at least looking for a way to exit Afghanistan. Here`s hoping they follow through, and don`t get caught up in the "politics of patriotism."
Nov 17, 2009 at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
DiGriz - First off, thanks for all you do. I've always appreciated our forces. I just want to clarify that my last post was not agreeing or disagreeing with why we're over there. You know better than anyone if what is occurring is effective or worthwhile. My point was, I wish people would be more understanding with how they word things when it comes to the support of our forces. I wish they wouldn't blame everything on past Presidents when the current ones aren't any better off. Quite frankly, I'm pretty tired of our Government being so concerned if all the other Countries like us when we can't even take care of ourselves here and that seems to be one big issue with the new Presidency.
Nov 17, 2009 at 3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
The men and women who fought are the wasted resources. They did, and are doing a great job. As for the debt/deficits, where was everybody when Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 grew them to where they are now, $12 trillion. somebody should have started these "Tea Parties" in 1981! We don`t know what the Obama Presidency will look like when it is done, but I give him credit for stepping into a huge pile of doo doo and trying to pull this country out of the mess it`s in. Did you happen to see the story about the uninsured veterans dying because they lacked health care?
Nov 17, 2009 at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
pharm - Think for a second before you speak. When you say things like "wasted resources", "wasted chance", immoral, on an on, how do you think that makes the men and women that fought feel? Whether you agree with the reasoning for it or not, use your head and think about them. Support them. Screw this health care and it could have been paid for. Liberals are too blind to even see how much money this country is pissing away daily on things they have no clue how they're going to pay for. It's real easy to blame everything on the past presidency. News flash to all. Your current President is putting this Country in one of the worst deficits it's ever going to see, so he's the farthest thing from a hero.
Nov 17, 2009 at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
If anybody thinks it is just liberals that are questioning our stay in Afghanistan you are sadly mistaken.
Nov 17, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
If not for the wars, tax cuts, the debt would not have doubled under Bush. It`s to the point that one year of the cost of defense would pay for health care reform for 10 years. You seem to be able to surf the web, read up about how the Afghans feel about us. do you want our troops to be there for 10 or twenty years? Why, for what reason? Al-Queda is not there, should we chase them from country to country? When does it end?
Nov 16, 2009 at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
We should leave. Nobody wants us there except the corrupt government, the people are seeing us as invaders. We can`t win, the only thing we can do is occupy the country for years into the future, and at a great cost in lives and money. For each additional troop we send, the deficit will go up a million dollars, according to the White house. Counting our allies, the Afghan forces, and ours, we already outnumber the Taliban 12 to 1, how many more will it take? Each General has asked for 30,000 or more the last two years, where will it end, at 500,000 like Viet Nam? We wasted our chance six years ago by going to Iraq instead of concentrating on where Al-Queda was. Iraq was illegal, immoral, and a waste to just get rid of a dictator and leave the country in a shambles. Saddam was not a threat to the US, as has been proven by what we didn`t find there.
Nov 16, 2009 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
The solution is simple. Give the troops what they need to stay safe there or bring them home!! It is as simple as that! If you don't give them what they need and keep them there, the blood of all those soldiers is on your hands Mr. President!!
Nov 16, 2009 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
And your solution is.....?
Nov 15, 2009 at 5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
"If the Taliban comes back in Afghanistan..." Too late, they are back. We wasted our resources in Iraq and neglected Afghanistan for six years , and now we are paying the price.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.