Obama Commits to Three Years of Afghan Fighting

Suetonius says that when Caesar crossed the Rubicon and committed himself to confronting his enemies, he said, "iacta alea est," the die is cast. Barack Obama is more a poker player, but all the same, last night he took a gamble as he outlined his strategy for Afghanistan. He will increase the US presence there by 30,000 troops and begin to withdraw after 18 months. His objective is to clear the country of Al Qaeda thugs, and train the Afghans to stand up for themselves. If it works, he's a genius, and if it doesn't, he's a one-term president. Sadly, there was another option the Pentagon never set before him.

Of course, Mr. Obama was dealt a very bad hand courtesy of the very same Republicans who started whining even before he spoke at West Point, New York, last night. A recent Senate report said that Usama bin Laden was, indeed, trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora and the chicken-hawk administration of George "LBJ" Bush refused to give the operation sufficient troops to bring him in or take him out. They were too busy trying to lie the country into Iraq-Nam.

Mr. Obama's objectives are prudent. Getting rid of Al Qaeda is rather like getting rid of the Bloods, the Crips or any other street gang. Put enough real fighters near them, and they go home. Training Afghanistan's police and military isn't inherently bad nor difficult. The country has a gun culture that would make it fertile territory for the National Rifle Association, so it's merely a matter of teaching them where to point their weapons. Above all, his desire to keep the mission short and within a certain budget merely recognizes financial reality. How many nations have bankrupted themselves fighting wars unwisely?

In last night's speech, Mr. Obama took on full responsibility for this war. During the campaign, he said he didn't oppose war, just dumb wars. He set out why he thought fighting in Afghanistan was a smart war. Mostly, it boiled down to 9/11. One does not care to disagree. The Obama presidency, though, doesn't depend on health care. A single payer system that had Americans living to 120 for no cost at all would not undo failure in Afghanistan now. It is his war.

Unfortunately, it appears that he has chosen to fight a "clear and hold" counter-insurgency. It's like drawing to an inside straight; impressive when it happens but unlikely to occur. He made it clear that the Taliban only harbored Al Qaeda, and he said that if members of the Taliban renounced violence, he had no quarrel with them working alongside the Kabul government. In other words, this war is really about the 100 or so Al Qaeda General Petraeus says are in the country. That is exactly what this journal has long maintained.

That means Mr. Obama could have set out a better strategy. Cutting the US forces to a few thousand and using them on "search and destroy" missions would still disrupt Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The US doesn't need to hold any territory, merely track down Al Qaeda members and settle the September 11 score. It's cheaper, quicker and exposes fewer troops to less danger. There are too many in the Pentagon who fail to realize that asymmetrical force works both ways. Al Qaeda needs bases from which to operate. Therefore, they must always defend all their bases while the US only needs a few minutes to pick them off one at a time. The war could be over in the same 18 months with a smaller butcher's bill for the good guys.

This journal continues to support the president, the military and the objective of putting Usama bin Laden's head on a stick. It's unfortunate that the president and the Pentagon have opted for the second best strategy to achieve that goal.

© Copyright 2009 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home