Obama's (In)Decision on Afghanistan

According to CBS News, President Barack Obama will send most, if not all, of the 40,000 additional troops that General Stanley McChrystal requested and reportedly plans to keep those troops in Afghanistan for the long-term.

If the CBS report turns out to be true -- the White House has backed away, and other news outlets are leaving the story alone for the moment -- the president's decision is disappointing, but expected. Last month, the administration ruled out the notion of a near-term U.S. exit from Afghanistan, arguing that the Taliban and al Qaeda would perceive an early pullout as a victory over the United States. But if avoiding a perception of weakness is the rationale that the administration is operating under then we have already lost by allowing our enemies to dictate the terms of the war.

Gen. McChrystal's ambitious strategy hopes to integrate U.S. troops into the Afghan population. These additional troops might reduce violence in the short- to medium-term. But this strategy rests on the presumption that Afghans in heavily contested areas want the protection of foreign troops. The reality might be very different; western forces might instead be perceived as a magnet for violence.

McChrystal's strategy also presumes that an additional 40,000 troops will be enough. But proponents of an ambitious counterinsurgency strategy need to come clean on the total bill that would be required. For a country the size of Afghanistan, with roughly 31 million people, the Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency doctrine advises between 620,000 to 775,000 counterinsurgents -- whether native or foreign. Furthermore, typical counterinsurgency missions require such concentrations of forces for a decade or more. Given these realities, we could soon hear cries of "surge," "if only," and "not enough."

Even if the United States and its allies committed themselves to decades of armed nation building, success against al Qaeda would hardly be guaranteed. After all, in the unlikely event that we forged a stable Afghanistan, al Qaeda would simply reposition its presence into other regions of the world.

It is well past time for the United States to adapt means to ends. The choice for President Obama is not between counterterrorism or counterinsurgency; but between counterterrorism and counterterrorism combined with counterinsurgency. Protecting the United States from terrorism does not require U.S. troops to police Afghan villages. Where terrorists do appear, we hardly need to tinker with their communal identities. We can target our enemies with allies on the ground or, if that fails, by relying on timely intelligence for use in targeted airstrikes or small-unit raids.

President Obama's decision on Afghanistan could define his presidency. If an escalating military strategy leads only to thousands of more deaths, and at a cost of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, then that is a bitter legacy indeed.

This post originally appeared on Cato at Liberty on November 10, 2009.

 

Follow Malou Innocent on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IndianBrownAle

Comments

[Lazslo]

Maybe I missed it; where in your article does it discuss consideration of what the Afghan people want?

[prettyinnocent]

Hey Lazslo, I address that concern here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malou-innocent/obamas-indecision-on-afgh_b_352254.html

[ssg13565]

The CATO Institute? Surely you jest.

This is November, April 1 doesn't come for several months yet.

[prettyinnocent]

Nope! No joke! We are non-interventionist :)

[johnsonc20]

We don't have enough money to get our economy going again or provide health care to all Americans, but we DO have enough money to pour two hundred billion into Iraq and Afghanistan? Where are our priorities, Mr. President? Hope and change seem far off when we see you continue Bush's foreign war folly.

[000Jade000]

Funny, I thought that never-ending wars were the Cato institute's preference.

[dzagama]

The Cato Institute is non-interv­entionist.

[dzagama]

""A policy that helps to create, repress, and demoralize hundreds of thousands of refugees and second-class citizens will inevitably breed demagogues and their attendant horrors. Thus, U.S. policy in the Middle East has been complicitous in fostering recklessness and atrocities on all sides."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019&full=1

"Cato Institute director criticizes interventionist U.S. policy"

http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/5/1/cato-institute-director-criticizes-interventionist-u-s-policy

Learn who your true enemies are, Jade.

[Radicalthinker]

Without a comprehensive South Asia strategy, the most we can hope for is a temporary peace in Afghanistan.

and that means moderating the strategic competition betwee India and Pakistan http://bit.ly/3vYHPk

[Waltfl]

I agree with most points in the article, however, I am glad not to be in Obama's shoes. It is a truly Shakespearean decision, and there is no right way. The right way would have been to never go in in the first place.
Now retreat an throw those who supported the USA (again) to the wolves? The advantage would be, nobody will ever trust the USA again, when it comes to starting wars. Retreat will leave a political vacuum.There is China standing by, bordering to Afghanistan's Pamir region. There is a nuklear-armed Pakistan in the East.
Staying doesn't sound much better. Unless an army is wiling to make costly and bloody sacrifices, there is no way of ever winning, because there is no clearly defined enemy, and no achievable goal. So what is there to win?
Gorbatchev said yesterday to get out immediately. I guess he is right. Who else would know better?

[charlos]

Like Innocent's analysis of the situation.
What worked in Iraq will not work there.
"Protecting the United States from terrorism does not require U.S. troops to police Afghan villages".

[khepri]

First order of business: give back the peace prize. Second task: begin packing now so you can make a clean exit from the WH in 2012.

[edva]

He has to keep us safe. That means thwarting terrorist attacks. I hope it does not mean continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he is privy to all the available information, so we must have faith that the best possible decision will be made.

[khepri]

He cannot keep us "safe" as long as American policy and military involvement in these remote regions of the world continue. Keeping us "safe" from terrorist attacks has its flip-side: bring US attacks to a halt, and bring the troops home. All of our soldiers are told that they are defending America; but the fact is they are harming America and endangering it unwittingly by their actions and their presence in areas where they are unwanted.

[edva]

That is essentially my feeling as well.

[Pablo175]

It sure takes a long time to dither.

[allwrite]

Take out pen and paper and write (or e-mail) Obama right now.

[FirstShirt]

Bush was criticized for not having an exit strategy in Iraq.

Obama has not even mentioned an exit strategy for Afghanistan. The paradox is that as more and more troops are sent in, more and more will die, then it will be seen as a disaster for them to have lost their lives fighting for a people who choose to not fight for themselves. The anger, resentment and divisiveness will increase. The politics of it will become a scar on the Obama presidency. What began as an administration of hope will become an administration mired in an unwinnable war.

Unlike the cold war in europe, the US has no friends in the neighborhood. Paskistan is fighting for it's life. With the attack of a domestic terrorist in Fort Hood, we need to reassess what we are doing. It is time.

[MrJoyboy]

As in Vietnam, increasing the number of troops will change a minor disaster into a major tragedy.

[jade7243]

The CBS report has been strongly denied by the administration and its National Security staff.

To suggest that a President weighing all options with regard to Afghanistan, the sacrifice of our soldiers and the massive financial burden that war along with its "cousin" in Iraq, amounts to "indecision," is the height of disingenuous hypocrisy and blatant ignorance. You had a president who believed in doing crap without thinking through the consequences and look what it brought us: Mission Accomplished.

[FirstShirt]

He had years of consideration while on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Are you suggesting he learned nothing while working with Biden and Lugar?

[NC4Obama]

Yea cause nothing has changed in recent times in Afghanistan right? Obama is thinking before he leaps, after the last 8 years i would hope people would know thats a good thing to do.