Prolonged Presence in Afghanistan is a Mistake
The “Yes We Can” president just rolled the dice for us again last week during his speech at West Point by opting to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The problem is that he immediately followed that declaration with another one presuming his decision would result in a mission accomplished and vowed to begin a withdrawal in 2011.
Interesting how most of his colleagues applauded his decision as being rational and strategically sound, but a similar ploy by the former president drew immediate fire from the left side of the political aisle and quickly backfired. But President Obama differentiates his action from the former president’s by stating that his decision was made after a long, thoughtful, gut-checking analysis. Those questioning his rationale offer two reasonable objections: Where will he get the troops and how is he going to pay for it. If the president wanted to end both wars quickly he’d man up and demand that Congress implement the draft, something that hasn’t been openly discussed because of the guarantee of a political firestorm less than a year before House and Senate members come up for re-election.
The president has taken the least problematical step, escalating the war in Afghanistan. Bringing it to an end and getting every troop home will be challenging beyond current comprehension.
This dilemma was brilliantly stated by Andrew Bacevich, a retired U.S. Army colonel and Boston University professor of history, when he said on the radio show, “He (President Obama) seems to assume that war is a predictable and controllable instrument that can be directed with precision by people sitting in offices back in Washington, D.C. I think the history of Vietnam and the history of war more broadly teaches us something different. And that is, when statesmen choose war, they really are simply rolling the dice.’’
In effect, the president is willing to gamble with the lives of those in uniform and the future of our country. If he loses this gamble, which many sincerely believe is likely, every one of us stands to lose something in the process. But those with the most to lose are the ones on the front lines in actual conflict. I don’t believe the United States will pull out of Afghanistan in 2011. At that point the problem will be two-fold; we can’t afford to stay because we aren’t winning, lives are being lost and the country remains in turmoil, but we can’t afford to get out and observe that region, along with its neighbor Pakistan, become safe havens and uninterrupted training grounds for terrorists.
Within a short time after President Obama’s address at West Point, his top security advisor, General James Jones, said, “In no manner, shape or form is the United States leaving Afghanistan in 2011…"
Further degrading the validity of the president’s remarks was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She commented during an address to the North Atlantic Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO's) highest political body, that eventual troop withdrawal was significantly dependent on a gradual and continuous transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces. She also stated, "The pace, size, and scope of the drawdown will be predicated on the situation on the ground. If things are going well, a larger number of forces could be removed from more areas. If not, the size and speed of the drawdown will be adjusted accordingly." She never referred to the 18 month timetable as an objective. Maybe she comprehends that telling your enemy your plans ahead of time gives them somewhat of a strategic advantage. The president should visit the U.S. Army War College and Institute for Strategic Studies sometime soon; he might learn something about tactics and war planning. He could also scan a classic book by Sun Tzu titled “The Art of War.”
You may recall that the president cited 43 nations as having vowed their support to help win the war in Afghanistan by deploying an estimated 10,000 additional troops. The president said, “Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility. What’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.”
No, Mr. President, what’s primarily at stake are the lives of our service members who volunteered to ensure the safety and security of those of us at home by defeating an enemy based mainly in the Middle East. When you make a decision of this magnitude it should be done with the sheer intent of winning, offering a clear and concise statement of what that means, and providing your enemy with nothing more than an unwavering message that we have the will, resources, and tenacity for accomplishing that mission.