The President's Afghan Agony

By Tom Plate

The current Afghanistan policy review facing Barack Hussein Obama is quite far from the easiest task on the Presidential chore list.

This youngish President didn't order up this war, but today, eight years after September 11, 2001, it is his distinct political inheritance, in part, of course, because of his oft-expressed sense of Afghanistan's strategic importance. So before too long ― and for as long as our troops are there ― it will be increasingly thought of as Obama's war. There will be no ducking this.

 Our American President is thus in the toughest of spots, and I would only wish for him some magnificently obvious and simple way out. There is none. Some Presidential decisions are simply bitterly tough, with huge consequences. But if asked for a policy analysis, this is what one humble West-Coast based columnist would say:
Dear Mr. President: Your instincts as both a gentleman and as a serious policy scholar will be to try to split the difference between those who want more troops sent to Afghanistan and those who want them gradually recalled. You must resist the instinct to take the mushy middle course. This would be a non-decision, which will not make much difference. It is a non-win decision, a losing choice.So whatever you decide, and whenever you decide it (and know most Americans will back you whatever it is), simply avoid the human temptation to try to muddle through. Your policy will sour into a complete muddle.

What then to do? You need either to listen and buy into the alleged "win" blueprint by approving the dispatch of tens of thousands more troops; or actually begin the process of gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan ― and at the same time step up the concentration of resources on Pakistan. Otherwise we'll just be marking time and taking casualties on the way to eventual defeat. And so the seemingly safe middle ground is the most treacherous territory of all. You'll just keep sinking in deeper as you try to stay in place.

But here is the other problem: if you do decide to say 'yes" to as many as 40,000 more troops, the magic upsurge number put forth by some of your advisors, down the road you'll be asked for still more troops (please Google ``Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson"). You can bet your basketball jump-shot on that.

Further: The latest news reports suggest that the only option that you are not ― NOT ― considering is the one for major climb-down. This means it looks like you are headed either toward escalation or toward keeping things as they are. Please hold on a second before you plunge ahead. There is a problem. It's called military history.

Look at it this way: The U.S., based on past performance, is clearly an exceptional performer in mammoth-scale, all-out, good-versus-evil world wars. Last century, in fact, we won two, lost none. But our record with smaller conflicts is problematic: The truth is that we are weak at winning those smaller, more localized, far-off, morally and politically complex engagements. Consider the facts since our magnificent World War Two triumph.In the Korean War, the best we could do was to hold onto only half of the peninsula despite having had more than a half million soldiers on the ground. Ditto in what used to be known as Indochina: We pummeled the daylights out of Vietnam, and had put more than a half million troops there; but at the end of the day the country was united under a Communist flag. Sorry ― but this was no victory.

In the eighties President Ronald Reagan, who was no pacifist dove, reacted (intelligently) to a nightmarish suicide bombing that killed many U.S. Marines by resolutely pulling our boys and girls out of Lebanon faster than anyone could say: ``Win One for the Gipper" (his most famous Hollywood movie line). Recall, too, that our messy Somalia engagement ended with Black Hawks down and U.S. forces then out. And we're still bogged down in Iraq, which started going downhill within days after we toppled the anti-Iranian government of Saddam Hussein (who did the heavy thinking on that one?!).

So here, Mr. President, is the question that may well define your Presidency and your legacy. Answer it properly and you could leave office a Lincoln. Here it is: Why should anyone believe that the outcome in Afghanistan will be any different from that of Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon and Iraq? This is why the one option you should have kept on the front burner much longer than you have is the very one that you are reported to have already excluded. You need to begin to deemphasize Afghanistan. It is just not a good candidate for nationhood (too tribal, would take too long, very expensive). Instead, put your administration's attention and resources on vital Pakistan, where many of the terrorist bad actors are hanging out. Otherwise, you are heading in a direction that has all the makings of historic tragedy.

Thank you for listening, Mr. President.

This article ran in The Korea Times (Seoul) on October 11, 2009.