We have been at war for eight years and the pace of military action has yet to decrease. How long can it go on? Clearly, the troops are worn and our children's future is at stake.
This past week, I marched with my seven year old son Brandon in the NYC Veteran's day parade along with a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. I brought Brandon along for the march because combat is a journey that is made by troops and their families alike. It was special to march with my son, because it reminded me of the time I spent away from him in 2003. I was also reminded of the troops now deployed away from their families and the President's upcoming strategic decision on the war in Afghanistan.
As I watched Brandon march down Fifth Avenue by my side, I considered whether he might ever choose to serve in the military. He would be a good soldier, I think. Brandon is a good team player and is full of determination. It is a scary thought, but I would be proud if he served our country one day. Hopefully, we'll have capable leaders who understand the nature of war and do everything to avoid it. This assumes that we will have ended this war which after eight years seems no closer to resolution than when it began.
The President's decision on Afghanistan could determine whether children born after September 11th are sent to this war. It might have seemed unfathomable back in 2001 to think that this war would have gone on so long, but here we are eight years in and no end in sight.
The President is about to face his biggest test in office -- answering a call from his Generals to escalate an already unpopular war. There are no good alternatives in war, only lesser evils. As much as President Obama might try to build consensus, accountability for the decision will be his and his alone.
Certainly, history will judge President Obama's decision with caveats -- that he inherited a war put on the backburner and an economy on the brink of collapse. However, at this point in history the President has the opportunity to reaffirm a previously chosen path, or to choose a new one. History will judge him on this point.
However, historians will not judge President Obama for decades to come, most likely. In the meantime, he has plenty of skeptics and political rivals to deal with. Although I concede that Bob Woodward will probably have a play-by-play analysis of the decision making process in an upcoming book, the long-term implications of the actual decision will not be known for decades. The outcome rests with our troops overseas and the viability of the strategy employed.
Most, if not all, politicians will hedge their support one way or another. Those who support counter-insurgency will say they think we should send more troops faster, while those opposed will say that we shouldn't send any. Again, it is easy to be a skeptic -- history does not judge them.
There will always be hawks that believe we should do more and doves who think no wars are worth fighting. However, the strategy not selected will always look better as time wears on because alternative histories never have to deal with the realities of the unknown. The narratives scripted by skeptics are never soundly tested, nor can they be refuted with evidence.
This is one reason why the "go big or go home" rationale might make sense if it were possible to take either course. It is irrefutable that we cannot "go big" enough to satisfy the extreme on that end. We don't have the resources.
On the other side, the "go home" option is also impossible; at least in the immediate term. The question is 'how to do it responsibly?' It is impossible to please anyone. No one is content when troops are dying and nor should they. That's the bottom line.
To stave off the effects of criticism the President will be required to continue to make his case to the American people until we begin to realize success. That may be impossible in light of the challenging economy we currently face.
So far, the President has handled criticism well from my perspective. Getting the decision right for the long-term is infinitely more important than satisfying any constituency in the short-term.
I appreciate that the President has taken time to deliberate this decision. Stepping back for a moment, it seems clear to me that a decision to send such large numbers of troops overseas could not be made with any less deliberation without jeopardizing the mission going forward. The President is right to take time. We needed time to test our assumptions. Still, I imagine that the troops are getting restless. It is difficult being on the front lines and not knowing how things might change. I've been there and sympathize with those troops in that position.
I am undecided on which direction we should take in Afghanistan because potential success largely rests in the convictions of our President and the will of the American people. It is important to understand that there is no silver bullet strategy. I believe several strategies could be successful if properly resourced and implemented -- including the 'going home' option. Execution is far more important and requires leadership full of conviction.
The complexity of the issue is important to note, however. Taking the wrong approach might lead to short-term gains while ensuring a more dramatic long-term failure. Pragmatism is required.
The most coherent rationale for being in Afghanistan relates to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Our assumption is that extremists could take over the Pakistani government if we were to leave Afghanistan. I believe this assumption, whether true or faulty, should be the key point tested in determining our mission in the region and whether we should have one there at all.
How does this end? Or, better yet, how can this end?
Buried within the central question of "how can it end" are numerous issues that make the situation much more complex than Iraq was in 2006. Most obvious of all, in my mind, is that Iraq possesses oil that it can sell to fund its budget requirements. Afghanistan lacks the same natural resources and economic potential. Furthermore, the enemy we have been fighting, the Taliban, is indigenous to Afghanistan.
One question we have to ask is, should we try to destroy the Taliban, or is there another strategy to achieve our original goal? -- denying sanctuary to Al Qaeda.
We are now poised to help the Afghans further grow their military to provide security for their people. If this mission is reinforced as a key component of the President's new strategy, then it might offer us a way out of Afghanistan while denying Al Qaeda sanctuary.
We should closely examine the long-term implications of this approach, however.
Our Generals have been clear -- Afghanistan will likely require a similar commitment to execute a successful counter-insurgency as we conducted in Iraq. Yet, I believe the challenge in Afghanistan is greater than it was in Iraq. For one, how can Afghanistan's economy sustain the military force that we are about to arm, equip and train with limited tax revenues?
In considering strategy, the President should weigh Afghanistan's economic potential in determining the long-term viability of their government in addition to the credibility of Afghani leadership.
Iraq's economy was a strategic focus in the counter-insurgency effort, as coalition forces sought ways to facilitate the repair of its oil industry. If we don't address the economic question in Afghanistan, then we could end up building a house of cards ready to collapse when we eventually leave.
If we are to proceed with any portion of a counter-insurgency option, then I'd propose that we be prepared to invest a significant amount into developing Afghanistan's infrastructure. We should also consider investing in building more schools as some have suggested. Investing in Afghanistan's infrastructure might allow their government to become self-sustaining within the intermediate-term. Infrastructure is the catalyst for long-term growth. Failing to facilitate economic growth will only deepen Afghanistan's dependence on our presence as they grow their government and security forces.
The President is certainly aware the potential backlash here in the U.S. of investing in another country's economy while ours still struggles. Can we invest the necessary amount in Afghanistan to promote success while also living up to our obligations at home? That is an enormous challenge, but not necessarily impossible.
The economic question is pivotal in my mind because growing the Afghan Army to combat insurgent forces could backfire as did our support of the mujahedeen years ago. At some point, the American people will probably demand our leaders to get out of Afghanistan either in polling or at the voting booth. At that point, will we have left Afghanistan in a self-sustaining position, or will we risk ending right back where we started?
We should not forget our original intent -- denying sanctuary for Al Qaeda. Balancing this need with our economic security must be a strategic priority. At some point, too, we must bring the troops home.
I pray that this war is over by the time my son Brandon is of age to enlist in the military. Children born after the start of this war should not be put in a position to play a role in ending it. Some of the options being considered make that a possibility. Already, their generation will help to pay for it.
Unfortunately, our President has no good alternatives in Afghanistan, only the necessary decision.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ryan McDermott.
Follow Ryan McDermott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/McDermottR08
Norman Lear: Lyndon Johnson, His National Security Advisor and His Secretary of Defense Say All
Was the Vietnam War an act of prescience, or simply a prelude to today? You decide. The first 1000 people who respond to this blog will receive a free DVD copy of last Friday's PBS show, Bill Moyers Journal.
If only this war weren't so complicated, perhaps we could just reach our big capitalistic hand out to Afghanistan and provide the country with the tools it needs to build up a stable, modern infrastructure - much like what China is doing for Africa now. But we've got decades of religious fundamentalism and American imperialism working against us. I think we need to fight against ignorance more than anything else in this world right now. Thanks for your realistic view on this issue Ryan.
There're no quick solutions to this problem.I think President Obama should send in re-inforcements at this point. But any such action should be with a caveat and must be time-bound. Of course, it will serve the purpose if India and China too are made stakeholders in the development of infrastructure and economy. In the end, it's only the integrated approach that will work. Commentators in media and elsewhere can debate endlessly about the effectiveness of any move that the President makes, but one thing is true; whatever he decides today should be with a long-term vision - even if that's not in line with puplic opinion. Because one wrong move, and the world will be back to where it was before 9/11.
1. Investment in Afghanistan by the world: As daunting it might sound, but biulding Afghanistan is definitely possible. When the world could help build India (after its independence in 1947), I see no reason why it can't do so in Afghanistan. To start with, investments should be made in agriculture, education, healthcare and heavy industries. I stress specifically on heavy manufacturing industries because they lay the basic foundation of other developments. What I am suggesting is something that has been done successfully in India. Of course, there will be a need for agencies like World Bank, IMF, UN and other international bodies, to pool in resources and divert towards Afghanistan. Let's also understand that not investing for the fear that the money will be consumed by the corrupt is a wrong approach. It might happen that out of $1, only $0.35 will actually be used for development, but that's a considerable change. With time as the society will evolve, Afghan people will ask for accountability and things will improve. Once the basics like agriculture, education, healthcare and heavy industries are taken care of, a self-sustaining economic cycle will start in the country. Though, the proess will be slow and long. It might take around 2 decades to get the desired results, but I don't see any other way of doing it.
1. Weak government and institutions in Afghanistan: This I believe is the most important issue. Due to continuous wars that it has faced for decades, Afghanistan never was able to have stable government and political institutions. As a result, other support structures like police, military and industry never actually became strong. Iraq is different from Afghanistan in this fundamental aspect. Under Saddam, Iraq had stable government and other supporting structures. So, it was only a matter of putting things back in place there. In Afghanistan however, these never existed!
2. Hostile neighbor: Most of us ignore that Taliban is a creation of Pakistan military and their support. In all likelihood, Pakistan is fighting this war out of compulsion than any conviction to actually fight terrorism. There are intelligence reports that Pakistan's military and ISI have been providing shelter, (and in some cases, support) to different elements within Taliban. It is too much for a fragile country like Afghanistan to be able to bear the brunt of such a hostile and much more organizaed neighbor. India being the most stable and strong country in the region (after China) had to employ all its resources to fight terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Just think, how can Afghanistan, with nearly non-existent institutions tackle such an onslaught. The question is, will Pakistan continue to chase Taliban even after US withdraws?
The decisions are tough. So much emotional of misplaced patriotism, financial consideration, spite from 9/11, political enemy sniper fire, etc etc. Worth thinking how one must cut the Gordian knot by revisiting some basic human principles - The Golden Rule is a good place to start. Do No Harm.
Hope the long term view that Obama gained from walking on China's Great Wall, his visits to veteran hospitals, and talking to the bereaved families of dead soldiers give him food for thought.
Since this war has never been properly planned or prosecuted why should we continue? Since we have no real partner in this battle in the Afghan government, military, police or population, why should we continue? Since we have obviously not learned the lessons of all of the previous insurgency "wars" of our past why should we continue?
If we turn a blind eye to realism, to facts, to the way things are NOW, not as we'd like them to be we risk this turning into an even closer mirror of our Vietnam experience.
How would you characterize the US relationship with Pakistan? Clearly, their government suffers from some internal corruption, however, I think that is ultimately a bigger problem for India than for America, at least from a nuclear standpoint.
Pakistan has consistenly denied American troops access -- while full-knowing that Al Qaeda and presumably, Bin Laden himself, is hiding there somewhere. Which is why I think President Obama has done the right thing by allowing drone attacks into Pakistan. But will there come a point where the President may have to order troops into Pakistan to hunt Al-Qaeda, and tell the Pakistani forces to step aside? I've never understood why a limited engagement agreement hasn't ever been granted, considering Pakistan is supposed to be one of our allies (and a well-paid one at that).
That being said, I hope that the president denies the troop buildup, and begins plans for a withdrawal.
I believe, the president has a fairly good grasp of the Afganistan's history - I know Sec. Gates is well aware of it.
Win or lose, I can't see a future where radical muslims ever let go of their hate for the west.
In one year we can train and equip over 1,000,000 Afghan troops.
We will provide the money to train and equip them. We will provide the money to pay them. These trained Afghan soldiers would then be transported back to their country to fight the Taliban. US military would need only to serve as advisers.
The total expenditrue would be less than what we are now spending. The soldiers would be on permanent duty and keep the Taliban controled.
If Karzi fights this proposal, then he is not committed to the cause. The US should withdraw all troops .
USE OUR MILITARY TRAINING BASES NOT OUR MILITARY!