Afghanistan – Obama’s Vietnam?

Differences of Opinion on Strategy
CBS News reports that President Obama is focused on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, rather than the Taliban. Thus he is considered unlikely to fulfill General Stanley McChrystal’s request for up to 40,000 additional troops. [1]

There is a deep difference of opinion among U.S. officials, with Obama leaning toward a “limited war,” and a strategy of reaching out to “moderates” in the Taliban. [2]

As recently as August, before the Afghan elections, Obama was telling the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the Afghanistan war was a war of necessity and not a war of choice, and that it was very important to keep Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for al-Qaeda terrorists.

Is It Like Vietnam?
It seems that the situation is looking too difficult and too complicated for Obama to want to get more involved. General McChrystal has said that without a substantial number of additional troops, we risk failure of the mission. But Obama is looking at the unpopularity of the war as recorded by the polls. So is Congress and they will decide on funding.

Obama’s advisers are downplaying the Taliban threat, according to a McClatchy article.
“One phrase that always comes up in the administration's strategy sessions is ‘public opinion,’ one participant told McClatchy.” [3]
This war has some characteristics seen during the Vietnam War:

1. Decreasing public support
2. Opinion widely split over strategy
3. Substantial danger of involvement by surrounding countries
4. Political leaders leaning toward “limited war” strategy, with no real plan for victory.
5. Political leaders would rather have an exit strategy than a victory.

Risks of Not Going for Victory
1. Steady, if slowed, progress by the Taliban in taking over Afghanistan
2. Anti-Taliban people who have supported America and NATO will likely be murdered.
3. Afghan civil war could reignite and draw in India and Pakistan, both with nuclear weapons, on opposite sides.

CBS News online reports: “‘A Taliban-ruled Afghanistan will be wide open for al Qaeda to expand its current sanctuaries and safe havens and I would argue al Qaeda's nothing without sanctuaries and safe havens,’ said Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.” [4]

The McClatchy article quotes a senior U.S. intelligence official as follows:
“‘The region right now is as volatile as I have ever seen it. The tension is not waning; it is on the rise,’ another senior U.S. intelligence official said. ‘The Indo-Pakistan issue looms like a dark cloud on a horizon that might look clear blue, but it is actually a tidal wave that is rushing in.’

“Finally, failure in Afghanistan would deal a massive blow to U.S. international standing to the benefit of Iran, Russia and China , and undermine the NATO alliance, [other] U.S. officials said.” [5]

Difficult Choices
So Obama faces a fateful decision. How much consideration should be given to the request of his top commander in Afghanistan? Obama has indicated that he’s uncomfortable with the idea of victory. I hope he won’t be unduly delayed further by concern over domestic matters. What needs to happen is this: Mr. Obama should show actual leadership by taking a firm decision and getting it carried out, and also explaining the realities of the matter to the American people. How will his decision affect our homeland security? How will it affect our relationships in NATO and our interests in the world?

Like Vietnam, we could, at substantial cost in lives and money, be fighting a “limited war” with no real goal of winning. Fortunately, we are not likely to lose as many lives in Afghanistan as in Vietnam, but each death is a tragic loss. Military personnel in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, and as our troops did in Vietnam, are courageously doing a great job in an environment most of us could hardly imagine, much less work effectively in. I think Obama should have victory as his goal. If it’s a “necessary war,” then it’s one that should end with America and NATO winning and the Taliban and al-Qaeda losing.

But it’s Obama’s call. Prayer and wisdom are needed.

[1] CBS News.com, “Obama Focusing on al Qaeda, not Taliban,” 10/08/2009, at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/08/politics/main5371942.shtml?tag=stack.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott, and Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers, “Officials: obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers,” 10/11/2009, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3330066.

[4] CBS News.com, see [1].

[5] Landay, et al, see [3].

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Obama Hits Snooze Button on Afghanistan

Barack Obama met with his war council on September 30 for a three-hour discussion of strategy for Afghanistan. An official who attended said anonymously that the meeting highlighted differences among Obama’s top advisers, according to an Associated Press article by Steven R. Hurst and Philip Elliott. Appearing to favor a troop increase are Hillary Clinton, and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus support the request of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, top commander in Afghanistan. [1]

But other advisers are skeptical of the idea: Rahm Emanuel, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, and Vice President Joe Biden. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “on the fence.” Several more meetings are planned and it may take weeks for President Obama to make a decision. [2]

Meanwhile, the Afghanistan military operation languishes for lack of resources. Gen. McChrystal (who, it was reported, has talked to Obama one time, as contrasted with commanders under G. W. Bush, who frequently spoke to him) has reported that our forces cannot meet their objectives without a substantial number of additional troops.

August, the AP article reports, has been the deadliest month of the war for American troops, with 51 deaths. [3]

Why is the President so indecisive about a war that he has proclaimed we must win? He was going to track down Obama bin Laden. He was going to invade Pakistan if necessary to accomplish his goals. Now, he seems to be dawdling as American troops are dying. He is sensitive to the fact that American support for the war has decreased. His left wing base is not supportive. Of course, now he doesn’t want to use the word “victory.” How about “defeat”? Is that better?

Not long ago, Obama was adamant about success in Afghanistan:



As reported by Bob Woodward from Gen. McChrystal’s leaked 66-page report to the Pentagon, the commander wrote, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” [4]

Woodward also reports that Obama is considering several options in addition to the general’s request. “Obama said last week that he will not decide whether to send more troops until he has ‘absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.’” [5]

It is reported that Obama has scheduled a teleconference with Gen. McChrystal, his second (!) direct conversation with the general.

It is disappointing that although Obama, who, as a candidate, seemed to have supreme confidence about what to do regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo cannot now decide in a reasonable amount of time about Afghanistan. Gen. McChrystal’s request is not exactly new as of today.

Apparently Mr. Obama needs more time, so he can go overseas to promote Chicago for the Olympics, and perhaps to take a few more polls about Afghanistan, or consult with George Soros or whoever. The delay is needed because Obama’s decision will impact his own political future. Meanwhile, American and allied troops must wait a while as danger increases. Decisions, decisions.


[1] Steven R. Hurst and Philip Elliott, “Obama’s war council divided on Afghanistan,” 10/01/09, Associated Press, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan_44

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Bob Woodward, “McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure’”, 09/20/09, The Washington Post (online) at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

[5] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com (Soldier at border checkpoint in Afghanistan)

Memorial Day Reflections

There are lots of things you can do on Memorial Day. You can get together with family and friends to (as the Coneheads say), “char some mammal flesh’” and “consume mass quantities.” Or watch TCM’s war-movie marathon or some other TV event, maybe even attend some Memorial Day ceremony. Lots of folks have family reunions around this time. A three-day weekend is always nice.

Whatever you’re doing, I hope you can take time to give some thought to the meaning of this holiday and what it is that we are observing: honoring the men and women who have died defending our freedom. The sacrifices that have been made to preserve us a free nation have been frequent and great. Many of the best and the brightest have been lost to their families and to our country in exchange for the freedom and safety we too often take for granted. And don’t forget those fighters who are still fighting, and those who fought in the past and survived the battles, often with grievous wounds. They deserve our gratitude, respect, and prayers, and so do their families.

God help us to never forget that a price must be paid for liberty. It is not automatic and it is not free. Our free nation is the great exception to the rule of tyranny which has always dominated this world historically and geographically. To live in America is a great blessing.

The pacifists are well motivated, but greatly mistaken. We would do well to remember the following (attributed to Ernest Hemingway): “There are several things worse than war, and they all come with defeat.”

Have a happy and thoughtful Memorial Day.