Barack Obama may have won the Nobel Peace Prize today, but our Commander-in-Chief cannot afford to delay making important choices in the war in Afghanistan.
Polls and pundits suggest America is reconsidering its commitment to victory over the Taliban in the face of steadily increasing casualties. In the midst of these doubts, and having declared Afghanistan the “good” and “necessary” war during his presidential campaign, Obama is struggling to decide what to do next.
There is not one right answer for the war; there are actually two potential answers. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but neither appears to have White House backing.
The first possibility is the plan put forward by General McChrystal, which envisions an Iraq-like surge of forces. McChrystal says that 40,000 additional troops are needed in Afghanistan to secure the fragile peace, protect the local population and begin to build a stable civil society capable of countering the Taliban. It is an expensive plan, in both money and blood, which will require a long-term, firm commitment to the Afghan theater, a burden that Obama and his Democrat allies don’t want to bear.
The alternative might be dubbed the George Will plan, but it’s really a retread of the disastrous approach the Democrats wanted for Iraq in 2006. It calls for a shift in focus away from “nation building” and toward a strategy of targeted strikes on Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. This approach would be less costly and would allow the vast majority of combat troops to come home, while allowing the US military to disrupt terrorist activities as needed. However, this plan would likely do little to stop Afghanistan from descending into chaos or the Taliban from returning.
But Obama must choose one or the other because a middle road will only lead to disaster. If we commit to securing the peace in Afghanistan without giving McChrystal the troops he needs, we will see a repeat of pre-surge Iraq. Violence will overtake the country and our troops will not have the forces to stop it. They’ll be left to fight and die for a lost cause, just to try and survive for another day. That would be a betrayal of our brave soldiers and would turn them into sitting ducks.
Yet, not every war has the same strategic goals. While a surge might have been necessary in Iraq, that does not mean the same should be done in Afghanistan—it depends entirely upon our nation’s goals in the country and what’s needed to achieve them. If the United States can seriously defend itself from Al-Qaeda by airstrikes alone, then the George Will plan will be the right one for our nation and our armed forces.
But if victory requires a free and stable Afghan nation, then only by following McChrystal’s advice can America achieve it.
So which approach does the president favor?
He seems to support McChrystal’s. As recently as two months ago, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Obama said that, “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans,” and that the fight in Afghanistan was “a war of necessity.” It is now up to Obama to decide whether he will follow through on his rhetoric or try to maintain an unsustainable status quo. He won’t be winning any medals for this wartime decision, but the lives of thousands of Americans depend on him making the right one.
Nathan Shapiro is a frequent contributor to The D.C. Writeup.
Loading ...