by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Sept. 13, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

          Caught in dangerous riptides, President Barack Obama finds himself torn between competing views of what to do in Afghanistan.  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton supports a troop surge, comparable to the one in Iraq, to combat a growing Taliban insurgency.  When former President George W. Bush waged war against the Taliban Oct. 7, 2001, his mission was to topple the regime and go after Osama bin Laden.  Eight years later, the mission is to protect the Karzai government from Taliban encroachment and go after opium farmers.  Vice President Joe Biden, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, believes the Afghan military—not U.S. forces—should carry to load.  U.S. Afghan Commander four-star Gen. Stanley McChrystal has asked Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates for another 10,000 to 15,000 troops.

                Shortly after Barack took office Jan. 20, 2009, he asked the Pentagon for an additional 21,000 troops for Afghanistasn. He promised he would shift U.S. priorities from Iraq to Afghanistan, arguing that the real war on terror was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.  Since Osama bin Laden slipped away from Tora Bora in 2002, the U.S. mission switched in Afghanistan from toppling the Taliban and getting Bin Laden to protect the government of Hamid Karzai.  Today’s mission has shifted away for Bin Laden and the Taliban to persecuting opium farmers—Afghanistan’s lifeblood.  Biden sees Afghanistan as essentially hopeless, while Hillary sees a troop surge as the answer to Afghanistan as it was in Iraq.  Senate Armed Services Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) agrees with Biden that escalating troops would do nothing other than increase U.S. casualty rates, something quintupled since May. 

            Since Barack campaigned to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, he tends to support his generals on the ground like McChyrstal and Centcom and former Iraq Commander David Petreus who believe in an Afghan troop surge.  While it’s tempting to equate Iraq with Afghanistan, it’s a whole different animal.  Ten years of a bloody war practically bankrupted the former Soviet Union when occupying Afghanistan.  Russia finally pulled the plug on Afghanistan in 1989, where thousands of Russians lost their lives.   Instead of committing himself to a failed strategy, Barack should reconsider escalating the Afghan war.  Adding 21,000 U.S. troops has done nothing other than dramatically increase U.S. casualty rates.  It was supposed pave the way for safe Afghan elections but instead helped Karzai get reelected in an election marred by credible allegations of voter-fraud

            NATO is also reassessing its mission in Afghanistan, questioning the feasibility of the current commitments.  Few military experts believe the U.S. is capable of taking on Afghanistan’s opium trade.  Obama has renewed U.S. commitment to getting Bin Laden and preventing the Taliban from returning to power.  Karzai controls a weak central government, barely in the greater Kabul area.  Most of Afghan’s provinces are controlled by warlords loyal to the Taliban and funded by the opium trade.  McChrystal wants another 10,000-15,.000 troops without changing the mission.  Calling conflicts in the administration “a necessary and healthy debate,” an unnamed White House official acknowledged opposition inside the Congress to escalating the war.  Most Republican elected officials, like former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), support a troop surge.

            House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran..) expressed grave reservations to an Afghan troop surge.  While working feverishly to pass the president's health care reform, Pelosi will fight Barack tooth-and-nail to escalate new foreign wars.  “I don’t think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan, in the country or in the Congress,” said Pelosi, putting Barack on notice that his Afghan plan could wind up killing his health care reform.  With budget deficits already threatening economic upheaval, more expenditures on Afghanistan could sabotage Barack’s domestic agenda.  Asking for 10,000-15,000 troops would threaten economic recovery by letting the Pentagon take more cash out of the domestic economy.  With budget deficits devaluing the dollar, the U.S. can’t afford to escalate another war at the expense of Barack’s economic and social agenda.

            Barack risks sabotaging his health care reform plan by promising to escalate the Afghan War.  U.S. presidents can’t have it both ways, financing costly wars and domestic programs that break the federal government   If Obama insists on escalating the Afghan War, me must be prepared to sacrifice his domestic agenda.  Long-term economic growth depends the  president spending the U.S. Treasury wisely.  As long as record deficits threaten the U.S. economy, Barack can’t push for a multibillion-dollar health care reform plan while he tries to rehabilitate the U.S. economy.  Barack must get the big picture that there can be no new wars before he promises the most costly U.S. government entitlement since Medicare passed in 1964.  Before committing to more troops in Afghanistan, Barack should take a new look at the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.  If Bin Laden and the Taliban are off-limits, then it’s time to get out.

 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.