| I recently had an out of town friend visit me, and inevitably our conversation turned to politics. My friend stated how he found it remarkable Obama has "adopted" two wars, a paradox since his early opposition to the Iraq war fueled his initial candidacy.
As the wars drag on (year 6 for Iraq with 140,000 troops still there) and 8 years for Afghanistan, there are rumblings from Obama's own party about current policy in the conduct of these wars in general, and Afghanistan in particular.
Iraq, for time being at least, appears to have stabilized, albeit at a cost far greater than anyone had imagined at the time of the invasion. On the other hand, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. Perhaps this "nation building" thing isn't as easy as we were led to believe.
Obama has been presented with a request from his military commanders for another increase in troops levels in Afghanistan. General McChystal, the commander Obama put in charge of the war earlier this year, has asked for another 30,000 to 40,000 troops on top of the current U.S. force of 68,000. Several months ago an additional 21,000 troops were asked for, and approved, by Obama. But the latest request would mean the U.S. would have more than doubled its troop levels this year, to a troop level exceeding 100,000.
Commander in Chief Obama is carefully and deliberately seeking counsel on this. The U.S. seems to be at a tipping point in the war in Afghanistan, and policy discussions should be engaged beyond the immediate request for more troops. The hard question that has to be asked, and truthfully answered, is the U.S. effort in Afghanistan vital to the "war on terrorism", or has this mission become counterproductive in that effort, draining us of resources that could be used more productively. In essence, is the war in Afghanistan vital to the national security of the United States?
The parallels of the current situation in Afghanistan with our tormented involvement in Vietnam are very apparent. We were told Vietnam was vital to the national security of the U.S. because if Vietnam fell to the communists, all of Asia would likely become communist under the "domino theory". Of course, that never happened, so one of the main premises for being there was not valid.
After the Tet offensive in January 1968, Commander William Westmoreland requested to President Johnson a 206,000 troop increase in Vietnam which would have brought total U.S. troop levels in Vietnam to 740,000. Johnson blinked, called a bombing halt, approved only 22,000 additional troops, and abdicated the throne. The proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel" never got any brighter.
We have to ask is Afghanistan really worth it? Is it really vital to our national security and the "war on terrorism" ? Are there better and more productive ways to combat terrorism than committing over 100,000 American troops in a virtually ungovernable region when history tells us our chances of success are elusive at best ? The Russians were there for ten years with 150,000 troops in what was arguably their sphere of influence, and at the end of the day they blinked. Given the political realities of this impoverished feudal non-state, is it simply a black hole with no light at the end of the tunnel?
Commander in Chief Obama must make some difficult decisions concerning our Afghanistan policy in the next few weeks. If he approves the troop increase, he has officially adopted this war as his own, for better or worse.
Or is it time for Obama to blink? |
