Speaking at West Point last night President Barack Obama announced plans to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to undertake a surge strategy very similar to the Bush administration strategy for Iraq. The president's plan differs from the Iraq surge in that he has set a departure date for the troops he is sending to Afghanistan.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
By including an 18-month target for withdrawal, Obama appeals to both sides of the political fight in America. For those of us who believe in the necessity of winning the war, the troop surge signals the president's determination to do just that. For those who favor ending America's involvement in the war, the commitment to a withdrawal date provides a deadline. If I had to guess, I'd say the deadline will slip before Obama will concede defeat.
Because of its similarity to the strategy for Iraq, his plan seems eminently workable. It is a counterinsurgency strategy that seeks to protect the Afghan people, providing space for political institutions to take root and develop, while at the same time building up Afghan forces to where they can assume responsibility for Afghanistan's security. There are three elements to the strategy.
1. A military strategy to break the Taliban's momentum and to increase Afghanistan's military capacity over the next 18 months.
2. A partnership with the United Nations and the Afghan people "to pursue a more effective civilian strategy." In other words, provide better government.
3. A greater emphasis on our partnership with Pakistan.
The speech changes my assessment of the Obama administration's commitment to winning in Afghanistan. Previously, I believed Obama would provide just enough military support to make himself appear committed to victory, but not enough to actually achieve it. After a while, the voting public would become impatient with a perceived lack of progress and demand a pullout. Obama would bend to the "will of the people" and do what he has always seemed to want to do -- withdraw.
I no longer hold that view. His feet are to the fire. He must win. Failure to achieve a stable Afghanistan will mean he is not the president George W. Bush was. He will have failed where Bush succeeded. Unthinkable. I believe he now has the will to succeed, but that doesn't guarantee success.
In order to win he has to let his generals to execute the strategy. If he meddles and micromanages as he appears to have done with this decision to send troops, he can still lose it.
The full text of the speech is here.
As an American and a former servicemember, I hope your assessment is correct. I'm inclined to agree with it. I realize that, if His Hopeful Changeness succeeds, he will claim to have snatched victory with his own hand from the jaws of defeat where George Bush left it. I can live with that if it means a safer US and a stable Afghanistan on the road to peace and prosperity. After all, I know that he is simply extending Bush's policies.
Afghanistan's government is better now than any it has had since British rule, possibly better than under British rule. Same for Iraq. Both nations have long rows to hoe yet, but they have a real chance of success.
We have never been "losing" the campaigns in either location. There has been far more violence than any civilized person wanted and far more Iraqi and Afghan civilians killed than any decent person wanted. Certainly our own sacrifices have been significant -- that is, those of our soldiers. The Taliban, the Baathists and Al Quaed have been disruptive to us but they have not regained any territory. They do not run either Iraq or Afghanistan. The cost has been a sorrowful one, not in dollars but in lives. But the lives lost are part of war, and a reason to use warfare only when we must.
Posted by: Geoff Brown | December 04, 2009 at 02:42 PM
...he will claim to have snatched victory with his own hand from the jaws of defeat where George Bush left it.
No doubt. How laughable that he loftily urges that we put aside partisanship, then in the next breath blames all of his problems on the Bush administration.
Obama is motivated by political advantage, or in this case the avoidance of political disaster. It's my guess that those months of dithering had a purpose, which was to allow popular opinion to turn decidedly against the war. Then Obama would bow to the will of the people and let Afghanistan go. I imagine he was dismayed to find himself between a rock and a hard place when that didn't happen. He is stuck with winning this war.
It's worth taking the time to write to our senators and congressmen to remind them that George Bush is the prime example of a successful commander-in-chief, which he demonstrated to us and to Obama by ordering the surge that ultimately turned the tide in Iraq. Obama can follow that example and win, or suffer the consequences of losing.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | December 05, 2009 at 07:52 AM