Obama's Afghanistan decision easier than claimed

Google images

To make the decision, the most important thing to do is correctly and adequately define the mission. Strategy, which is the word that is being tossed around the most, comes second to defining the mission not the other way around. And it seems that Obama has not yet clearly defined the mission, something we've seen before in his handling of healthcare.

 

But it's not as hard a decision as being suggested. There is only one question to be answered with regards to Afghanistan and that is: would a resurgence of the Taliban result in a threat to U.S. national security? Once you answer that question the decision is clear. And its clear that the answer is yes.

 

The last time the Taliban were in power they were giving shelter, resources and protection to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and, as the recent attack that killed 8 U.S. soldiers showed, there is no doubt they would do it again and with a vengeance if given the opportunity.

 

And if General McCrystal is everything everyone says he is, the decision seems to be a lot clearer and simpler than is being suggested, which is to send the troops and follow McCrystal's strategy for defeating the Taliban.

 

The only alternative on the table is to conclude the Taliban is no threat to us in which case you don't send the troops. There would be the moral issue of allowing an organization who threw acid into the faces of 8 year old girls for simply going to school because it violated Taliban beliefs to return to power. But that would be another debate.

 

The Taliban issued a statement saying they are no threat to the West and are fighting only what they see as occupying forces. But they also said that invading Afghanistan after the 911 attacks was hasty and unjustified and that there was never any proof linking Al-Qaeda with the 911 attacks. So much for the Taliban's statement.

 

The real question is why Obama is wrestling  with it  at all and why he has not been able to frame the issue clearly and place the main responsibility of why we have to send more troops where it belongs -- because of  the gross incompetence of George W.Bush and the Republicans who ignored the need to send enough troops to Afghanistan in order to focus stupidly on Iraq,  the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history.

 

After 911 Afghanistan is where our military focus should have been since that is where the enemy was. Bush used the 911 attacks as an excuse to do what the neo-cons had wanted to do for years -- invade Iraq and overthrow Sadaam. Because Bush didnt do the job that was needed and because he ignored the resurgence of the Taliban during his own administration we now have to do what should have been done eight years ago.

 

The problem is Obama has been unable to frame an issue and be persuasive as we;ve seen with health care reform and now he seems to be floundering again. To show just equivocal and indecsive Obama is, his press secretary Robert Gibbs at a recent press briefing said that being in Afghanistan was "critical to our national security" and in the same breath said "but the commitment is not open ended".

 

That is the administration  talking out of both sides of his mouth since the two ideas are mutually exclusive. If defeating the Taliban is critical to national security then the commitment has to be open ended until the Taliban is defeated. If it's not an open ended commitment  then it's not about our national security and if that's the case then what are we doing there?

 

The best Nancy Pelosi could say with regards to the White House meeting was to thank Obama profusely for having the meeting in the first place. Why she was lavishing all this gratitude was unclear since undoubtedly Obama wants the decision on Afghanistan to be shared and needs the input of congressional leaders and others. Especially with the Vietnam comparisons floating around.

 

But the comparisons  to Vietnam aren't valid. In Vietnam every rationale for war proved to be a miscalculation. The invasion from the North was supposedly inspired by the Soviets. That was proved wrong. The domino theory, another motive fore sending in troops was also proved wrong. And we were essentially there fighting on behalf  of another government and one that was corrupt as well. In Afghanistan our purpose is solely our own national security and to defeat an enemy that was an accessory to the 911 attacks.

 

The worry is Obama will make, not a strategic decision, but a political one and split the baby. Instead of deciding either to give McCrystal what he wants or not send more troops, he will go half way to try and satisfy those on both sides politically. And that is exactly what is being floated now. MSNBC was reporting that Obama is considering sending 10,000 additional troops, not 40,000 to try and satisfy both sides.

 

That would be the disaster since it's not enough to give McCrystal what he says he needs to solve the problem and more than those who oppose sending more troops want. But its a disaster that can be easily avoided by having a conviction and being decisive. The problem is so far in his presidency Obama hasnt  shown he has.been able to do either.