President Obama today ended three months of fact finding, consultations and consideration, formally announcing his decision to send another 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total there to about 100,000.
Obama presented his plan at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., addressing an audience made up largely of cadets, some of whom have already served in Afghanistan.
The president intends to boost troop levels in country rapidly, in six months instead of the 12 envisioned by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, top commander there.
In a clear bid to put spurs to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his countrymen, Obama set a deadline of July, 2011, when a drawdown of U.S. troops will get under way.
Obama laid out three straightforward goals for the enlarged force in Afghanistan: Keep al Qaeda from establishing a base from which it can operate with impunity; reverse the Taliban resurgence and keep it from regaining power; and help prepare the government, its police and military forces to provide sufficient security when U.S. troops depart.
In a speech perfectly crafted and delivered as a commander in chief’s assigning and explaining a mission to those who will carry it out, Obama took care to make clear the U.S. has no designs on Afghanistan’s territory, no desire to be an occupier — and no intention of taking on an open-ended commitment.
Unfortunately missing from the speech was a statement that this effort will be subject to ongoing review, and if sufficient cooperation is not forthcoming from Afghanistan and Pakistan, it could be brought to an abrupt end at any time.
Obama was, however, upfront about the mission’s estimated $30 billion additional cost, acknowledging that in the current economic climate that expense is all the more burdensome. He wisely said the nation he’s most interested in building is America.
Responding to critics of escalating the Afghanistan mission, Obama dismissed comparisons to Vietnam. He said that unlike that earlier war, the U.S. is part of an international coalition fighting in Afghanistan, that the enemy is not a popular insurgency , and that Americans were “attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”
We acknowledge Obama’s first two points, but aren’t impressed with the third, which he described as the most important. In fact, the bulk of 9-11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — ostensibly our allies. Masterminds behind such attacks could operate from almost anywhere.
Parallels with Vietnam Obama failed to address as such tell more about the potential dangers of his decision. Like the Saigon government, Karzai’s government is weak and corrupt. As was true of most Vietnamese — also mostly poor and uneducated — most Afghans feel little loyalty to or enthusiasm for their government. Many are tired of war, skeptical about the likelihood of ridding their country of the Taliban, and therefore not especially motivated to help make that happen.
Another area Obama failed to address adequately is Pakistan. While it’s true that country recently stepped up military action against Taliban inroads within its borders, there’s no telling how much success, if any, has been achieved.
The fact the Taliban can cross back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan, can hole up, regroup, train new fighters there, and so on, makes for the same kind of handicap U.S. forces had to contend with in Vietnam. To meet the goals Obama set forth, the Taliban must be ground down to a bloody nub on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We see that as unlikely to be achieved, given Pakistan’s unwillingness to let our troops operate on its soil and its own incredibly lame track record in dealing with the Taliban.
Our bottom line: The president is privy to the most, the latest and the best intelligence of anyone. The same is true of military advice. We trust in this president’s willingness and ability to deal sensibly with facts and hard evidence. However, we remain skeptical about his plan succeeding, especially when it comes to relying on Afghans and Pakistanis to shoulder more of the burden and wage successful, sustained war against the Taliban and al Qaeda.
We’re going to support Obama’s plan, at least for now. We’re going to try to believe and dare to hope he’s right and our skepticism is misplaced.
It was a great speech, well delivered, as you would expect from such a fine orator. But reading between the lines it seems to be a surge to help withdrawal, July 2011, a date the republicans will beat Obama around the head with.
Don’t know how media sites get this number, but there are supposed to be 25,000 Afghani Taliban, which makes them outnumbered by USA/NATO troops 3-1 right now. What will the Taliban do? Quit their day job, go back to sharecropping for a couple of years, take some US money, start growing coffee instead of opium? And when the infidel has gone home claiming victory, get back to doing what you enjoy.
Once again, a world leader fails to adhere to the words of that brilliant sage, Vizzini. Oh well, I’m sure there was some Überthreat® that us rubes don’t know about.
I’m against this. I think he should pull out all American troops yesterday. But then I’m not privy to the information Obama has, and not facing the incredible pressures from every direction that he’s facing.
I’m just pipedreaming here, but I think we should have nationwide referendums on important issues like this. All invasions, and all troop increases, would need two thirds of the public to vote Yes on this question: Should we have a 25% increase on all taxes (no exceptions!) in order to enable this war? If 34% or more of the public votes No — no dice.
This approach has been working like a charm for schools, libraries, mass transit and parks. Why not expand it to include foreign invasions?
Holte, setting a deadline was, IMO, one of Obama’s best and bravest moves regarding Afghanistan. Yes, he wants to placate the Democratic left, but knows that date will be little comfort to those who want out immediately. But mostly he was prodding Karzai and others in Afghanistan in what should be a powerful way. They’re being given a chance to retain control, freedom and independence, but they must get busy and work for it. We’ll see if they are savvy enough to do what’s required.
Yes, Republicans will demagogue the drawdown date. What else is new? If it wasn’t that, they would complain about Obama not sending the 40,000 troops McChrystal wanted, or something else.
Randal, would that be Vinnie Vizzini, the famous hubcap/car parts thief who was finally brought to justice after ripping off a Lexus showroom one too many times?
Tom, I well understand your being against this. However, having served in the military, I do not want decisions about war and military interventions decided by referendum. That said, I do think we need a serious re-examination and reform of the War Powers Act, and with the mechanism for authorizing the use of military force.
For starters, unless missiles are heading at us, presidents should have to go to Congress and formally request a declaration of war. Not a blank check for using force, but a declaration of war against a specific country. Anything else should be police work.
Bush left a hell of a mess to clean up, didn’t he? While I’m not crazy about a troop surge in Afghanistan, I can’t condone simply pulling out willy nilly and leaving people to their own devices in a country with little or no infrastructure left, and a militant group that truly cares for naught about its women, children and old people. Granted, some say the same about the US, but that’s another comment altogether. I believed in 2002-2003 that if a war needed to be fought anywhere, it needed to be in Afghanistan. I know, 2000 years of history tells us a ground war there is un-winnable, but that can be overcome and worked around, with some tactical and strategic thinking outside the box. I’m just not sure these generals and joint chiefs can think outside that napoleanic warfare box they seem to have gotten stuck back inside of.
I know what you mean, Bee. Part of me wants to say this is wrong, we should just bring the troops home. Unfortunately, there are costs, risks and downsides all over the place to doing that. Will we ever learn that it’s much harder to deal with a botched military option than it is to send in a big enough force in the first place? Will we ever learn the value of sealing a country’s borders, especially in the Mideast?
I reluctantly support Barack Obama’s decision. I just hope we don’t have a bunch of wealthy Afghan exiles in three years.
The Pakistanis may or may not do a better job than they have of dealing with the more radical elements on their border but it’s a sure thing that Pakistan will probably do little if we leave.
The problem is and has been for some time Pakistan, its military and its nuclear arsenal. The Pakistanis keep reassuring us that their weapons are secure. Maybe. During World War II the British kept reassuring Roosevelt that Singapore was the Rock of Gibraltor of the East. It was impregnable. Famous last words.
Although the surge and a definite deadline both buy Barack Obama some time, and I’m beginning to see how time may be important, he runs the risk of suffering damage during the midterms and he may make it difficult to get himself reelected. Given the current temperament of the Republican Party, our country may have a problem in 3 1/2 years. Although I never thought Obama was the liberal many people hoped he would be, I’ve been hoping that he wouldn’t hunker down like a machine Democrat when he realized the magnitude of the problems we’re facing. I still get good vibes from him because of his intelligence; I just wish he wouldn’t prick my doubts so often.
Personally I think its time for Obama to challenge the American people and its time for him to educate them. He’s done a little in that direction but not nearly enough. Given the current political environment, I admit it’s a hard thing to do. But we need him to succeed.
Politically, Obama was in a “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” position. I suspect he also felt a responsibility to those who’ve risked their lives over there, and especially to those who lost their lives, and to the loved ones of the fallen, to not order an abrupt pullout. It would be like saying all that risk and sacrifice was not so important after all. I think that pull on a president’s conscience is too little appreciated by the rest of us.