Obama's Promise to 'Win' in Afghanistan -- Wise or Wrong?

That U.S. casualties had finally hit the 500 mark in Afghanistan drew wide press attention today, including coverage on the front page of The New York Times. Every so often now, the media notes that the ongoing American death toll in that country now eclipses the grim tally in Iraq. So the war in Afghanistan, long overlooked, is now getting more notice. Polls show that the American people are growing increasingly concerned, and pessimistic, about that conflict.

But does that mean the U.S., finally starting (perhaps) to dig out of Iraq, should now commit to another open-ended war, even for a good cause, not so far away?

Nearly everyone in the media, and on the political stage, say that this is the "good war." Liberals, including a certain senator named Obama, have long made political points on Iraq by stating that it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time - when we should have kept our eye on the ball in Afghanistan (and adjoining areas of Pakistan). Hell, I have made that argument myself, and it is not wrong.

We should have done that. And if we had, no doubt the situation in Afghanistan would be a lot better today, as would the overall "war on terror."

But we didn't, and now we are desperately trying to play catch up. So the overwhelming sentiment from American leaders, including Obama and many of his supporters, is: Take troops out of Iraq and move them (and maybe even more of them, as John McCain argues) right over to Afghanistan.

Obama has even said we must "win" there. But it's the same question we have faced in Iraq: What does he define as "winning"? How much are we willing to expend (in lives lost and money) at a time of a severe budget crunch and overstretched military? Shouldn't the native forces -- and NATO -- be doing more? And what about Pakistan? And so on. We've been fighting there even longer than in Iraq, if that seems possible. Now do want to jump out of a frying pan into that fire in an open-ended way?

Few voices in the mainstream media - and even in the liberal blogosphere - have tackled this subject, partly because of long arguing for the need to fight the "good war" as opposed to the "bad war." But now some very respected commentators - with impeccable pro-military credentials - are starting to sound off on the longterm dangers.

Joseph L. Galloway, the legendary war reporter -- recently retired from Knight Ridder - has written a column for McClatchy Newspapers ringing an alarm about Afghanistan, based largely on a recent paper written by Gen. Barry McCaffrey for use at West Point after his tour of the war zone. Spencer Ackerman, a former Iraq embed, covers this report, and quotes other military and former CIA officials in a piece at The Washington Independent at:

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/

Earlier this week, Michael Miner at the Chicago Reader blogged in this vein, and quoted Thomas Friedman in a recent New York Times column: "The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want....Obama needs to ask himself honestly: 'Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?'"

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/news-bites/2008/08/05/obama-afghanistans-next-victim/

Here is an excerpt from the Galloway column::

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who retired from the U.S. Army with four stars and a chest full of combat medals including two Distinguished Service Crosses, says we can't shoot our way out of Afghanistan, and the two or three or more American combat brigades proposed by the two putative nominees for president are irrelevant....

The general says that despite the two presidential candidates' sound bites, a few more combat brigades from "our rapidly unraveling Army" won't make much difference in Afghanistan. Military means, he writes, won't be enough to counter terror created by resurgent Taliban forces; we can't win with a war of attrition; and the economic and political support from the international community is inadequate.

"This is a struggle for the hearts of the people, and good governance, and the creation of Afghan security forces," McCaffrey writes. He says the main theater of war is in frontier regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the combatants are tribes, religious groups, criminals and drug lords. It'll take a quarter-century of nation-building, road and bridge building, the building of a better-trained and better-armed Afghan National Police and National Army and the eradication of a huge opium farming industry to achieve a good outcome in Afghanistan, McCaffrey wrote in his report to leaders at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

We can't afford to fail in Afghanistan, the general says, but he doesn't address the question of whether we can afford to succeed there, either.

Without NATO, we're lost in Afghanistan, he writes. But NATO's level of commitment and engagement in Afghanistan is woefully inadequate....

*
*
Greg Mitchell's new book features an intro by Galloway. It is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. He is editor of Editor & Publisher.

Comments

[S1m0n]

Both. It's good politics, bad military strategy. As Obama is at present fighting an election campaign, not a military campaign, the balance falls on "good".

[RepugsOut08]

In our justifiable anger over the attacks on 9/11, we allowed a group of misguided and ill-informed men with an alternate agenda to drag us into a war where no true war existed. It's as if you'd call in the Marines to take out a disgruntled employee who shoots up a shopping mall. The magnitute of the horror that day disguised the actual criminal aspect making it appear like an act of war a by hostile nation.
The terrorists achieved their goal the minute we panicked and committed our blood and wealth to taking out the non-threat Saddam. Bush supporters say that no one could have predicted how the Iraq invasion would turn out back in 2003. I predicted it after reading a few articles about the culture of that region, and so did many many others.
We're dealing with the same issues we've been dealing with since the 90s, and it's clear we need the world's help in bringing to justice this criminal element that threatens all civilized people.
The presidential candidates will have to talk as if al-qaeda is some vast nation of soldiers determined to attack our shores if they want to get elected, but let's pray the next president enlists the help of every friendly nation we can find to eliminate this criminal blight on society. My bet is on the guy who knows the Iraq "surge" success is probably an illusion, and who is reconnecting with our lost allies abroad.

[jhNY]

From the outset, I have been against the use of the military to deter terrorism. As it had been in all previous administrations, the best plan for combating and defeating terrorists is through the employment of law enforcement and the application of international justice. Democrats on the sidelines with an eye on the main chance have been but half-smart over the last 8 years regarding terrorism, preferring to criticise the application of the military as a matter of strategy-- wrong war in Iraq when Iran was more dangerous, etc. (see Kerry, John, 2004 campaign)-- rather criticise than the use of the military per se to combat terrorism. A trillion dollars later, Bin Laden remains at large, Al Qaeda still retains the power to strike at the West, and it turns out that military occupation is an endless nightmare anyplace the natives are disagreeable to its application. We would have been better off criminalizing Al Qaeda and its leaders, demanding their capture from the sovereign nations where they had taken up residence, and trying them at The Hague. But the Bush cabal, and their myriad enablers in the press and the government have no interest in international law, and Bush has a list of voracious donors who profit from war and from the disruption of the oil market, so here we are.

[Henry]

I think that the issue of the "pipeline" accross Afganistan and the "permanent bases" in the nation of Iraq needs to be put in front of the government and the people. Is all this horseshit about control of this area and the profitable extraction of resources??? Time to fess up. Freedom is a bit passe. What the hell are we really doing there? Are we "man" enough to take the truth???
The stories of little George and the Taliban are all over the internet. Are these fabricated?