by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Sept. 3, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

                  Facts on the ground in Afghanistan are stubborn things, pointing to the same mess confronted by the Soviets in the 1980s before they pulled the plug Feb. 15, 1989—10 long costly, bloody years of war culminating with the August 23, 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall.  Former President George W. Bush wasted little time attacking the Taliban regime Oct. 7, 2001, only three weeks after Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon Sept. 11, 2001.  Nearly eight years later, U.S. and coalition casualties have escalated to a death toll of 75—the most deadly month since the war’s start.  President Barack Obama campaigned to end the Iraq War and redirect forces to Afghanistan, something he regards as the real war on terror. Barack added 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, hoping to take the battle to the enemy that attacked the U.S. Sept. 11, redirecting U.S. priorities.

            Since reinforcements began arriving in spring, casualty rates have quintupled from April’s 14 coalition losses.  U.S. forces have been taking the battle to the Taliban, pushing deeply into enemy territory, resulting in the spike in casualties.  For months leading up to real-time in Afghanistan, Bin Laden’s mujahedeen, the same fighters that the U.S. supported in the ‘80s to defeat the Soviets, has relocated from Iraq resulting in dramatically lower casualties.  Only 7 U.S. soldiers lost their lives in August, a tribute to the fact that neither Iraqi insurgents nor U.S. troops are engaged in battle.  Al-Qaida has rejoined the Taliban, contributing the up-tick in violence.  “The situation in Afghanistan is serious but it is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort,” said U.S. Afghan Commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

            McChrystal’s long-awaited analysis is no surprise since the situation has been deteriorating for years.  Former President George W. Bush put all his eggs in Iraq, hoping to make progress with his troop surge that his administration credited with the drop in violence.  Iraq was always far more manageable than Afghanistan, where the bulk of the country is partitioned to warlords and funded by opium farmers.  Despite past claims that the Taliban opposed the opium trade, the reality is that opium farmers use the Taliban as a de facto militia or security force.  When Bush went to Afghanistan after Sept. 11, the mission was to topple a government that collaborated, supported and protected Osama bin Laden.  Today’s mission in Afghanistan is about protecting the Karzai government from the Taliban’s relentless attacks.  It’s no longer about finding Bin Laden or destroying al-Qaida.

            Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered McChrystal to take a 60-day review to reverse the current downward slide.  U.S. public opinion is far more jaded about the prospects for success in Afghanistan.  Obama walks a tightrope expecting public opinion to support a major escalation in U.S. troop commitments, considering the hardship and sacrifices made in the homeland.  Almost eight years since Sept. 11, the American public is far more tuned-in to domestic affairs, especially reviving a lackluster economy casting too many citizens into unemployment.  McChrystal talks about “commitment and resolve and increase unity of effort” but the public has grown skeptical in Afghanistan of wasting more blood and treasure.  Since increasing troop strength this spring, U.S. casualty rates have gone through the roof.  Bogging the U.S. military down in fighting another bloody guerrilla war makes no sense.

            Obama must decide, like he did in Iraq, the mission in Afghanistan.  He can’t rely on Gates or his commanders on the ground, since they don’t set U.S. foreign policy.  Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney insisted that they took their cues from military commanders.  While there’s nothing wrong with Centcom Commander Gen. David Petreus, he’s not the one setting U.S. foreign policy:  It’s the president.  Since the U.S. no longer goes after Bin Laden, the battle with the Taliban can be performed more surgically with predator drones and airpower.  Placing more boots on the ground can only result in more casualties with the U.S. faced with complicated counterinsurgency operations.  With 62,000 coalition forces in Afghanistan, the outcome is by no means certain escalating to 100,000.  Taliban forces have been waging a bloody insurgency with improvised explosive devices.

            Obama must step up the plate and decide the fortunes of his administration in Afghanistan.  Calling the Iraq War bad and Afghanistan War good does nothing to come to grips with the current deterioration.  McChrystal’s probably right with a enough blood and treasure the U.S. could improve the situation on the ground.  But the U.S. already knows, like the former Soviets, they face an uphill battle trying to beat back Afghanistan’s opium trade-supported Taliban.  If the Taliban amass any significant weaponry or army, the U.S. can hit them hard with superior airpower.  Continuing the current guerrilla war, even with Gates-Petreus-McChyrstal’s best counterinsurgency strategy, will wind up the same as the Soviets.  Since Alexander the Great, no Western army has won a land war in Asia.  Before the U.S. gets caught in the same Soviet Afghan trap, Obama should think twice.

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.