by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Oct. 3, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

            Huddling in the White House Situation Room, President Barack Obama met with his National Security team to debate a request by Afghanistan Commander Gen. Stanley McChyrstal for an additional 40,000 troops.  Obama campaigned against the Iraq War, frequently citing Afghanistan as the “real” war on terror.  Now that he’s commander-in-chief, he must make a fateful decision that could have real consequences on his presidency:  Whether or not to escalate the Afghan War.  Neglected during George W. Bush’s presidency, Afghanistan fell by the wayside, while escalating the Iraq War.  Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney insisted that Iraq was the central front in the war on terror, battling al-Qaida.  They both warned that without a total U.S. commitment, Iraq would fall to Osama bin Laden.  Since Barack took office Jan. 20, he ignored Bush and Cheney’s warnings.

            Republicans credit much progress in Iraq to Bush’s 2007 troop surge, where some 20,000 additional troops battled insurgents.  Supported by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and executed by Iraq Commander Gen. David Petraeus, the yearlong troop surge eventually brought down U.S. casualty rates.  Petraeus, now Centocm commander, supports surging forces in Afghanistan where a determined Taliban insurgency threatens to upend the U.S. mission.  When Barack added 21,000 troops last March, casualty rates quintupled, now averaging near 80 per month.  Since redoubling efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq death rates have correspondingly dropped to under 10 a month, creating the impression of success.  What really caused the drop of casualty rates in Iraq was the strategic redeployment of U.S. forces out of dangerous combat and reconnaissance missions.

             Obama has resisted pressure to add more troops, asking instead to reassess the U.S. mission.  When Bush originally launched Operation Enduring Freedom Oct. 7, 2001, the mission was to topple the Taliban and capture or kill Osama bin Laden.  While Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, the Taliban was indeed toppled Nov. 14, 2001, driven back to its southern Afghan stronghold in Kandahar.  Since then, they’ve been fighting a guerrilla war against the Karzai government and coalition forces.  Funded by the opium trade, the Taliban has been joined by al-Qaida, now, as it was in the 1980s against the Soviets, concentrating its fight against NATO forces.  With the opium-trade–funded Taliban supporting warlords around the country, the U.S.-backed Karzai government only controls a portion of Kabul, the capital city.  U.S. and NATO forces have been losing ground.

            U.S. Afghan Commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal recently released his 66-page assessment, claiming the U.S and NATO forces were losing to the Taliban.  He urged the White House to add an additional 30,000-40,000 troops adding the total to over 100,000.  Obama must now calculate the difficult odds of adding more troops and winning the insurgency against possible disastrous political consequences.  If U.S. death rates escalate, he’ll trade places with Bush, whose Iraq War destroyed his approval ratings, presidency and the GOP.   Obama faces a daunting challenge, paying attention to recent polls showing the American public opposed to escalating the Afghan War and heeding military advisors and certain GOP politicians seeking a troop surge to reverse what looks like an eventual military defeat.  McChyrstal has already told Obama that there are no guarantees.

            Obama seeks to redefine the mission in Afghanistan.  He knows the war is no longer about getting Osama bin Laden or regime change in Kabul.  Going after the opium trade and Afghan’s numerous warlords spell disaster for the U.S. military.  NATO forces have also become frustrated with what they see as a bottomless pit of money and deaths.  U.S. and NATO forces face far more difficult battle in Afghanistan than Iraq.  Unlike Iraq, there’s no authoritarian leader in Afghanistan ready to confront the Taliban insurgency.  Unlike Karzai, Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki with U.S. help managed to cobble together a powerful security force with the remnants of Moqtada al-Sadr al-Mahdi militia, enabling him to suppress the Sunni uprising.  Karazi’s government commands little support around Afghanistan.  He can’t compete with the opium-trade-backed Taliban for popular support.

            Obama must recalculate the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.  While he talked about fighting the “real” war on terror, Afghanistan has deteriorated into supporting a U.S. puppet that commands little popular support outside Kabul.  Karzai’s recently disputed election, replete with allegations of voter fraud, doesn’t help the U.S. cause to the Afghan people.  Obama finds himself at odds with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, Centcom Commander Gen. David Petraeus, and Iraq Commander Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, all of whom seek a troop surge.  His own Defense Secretary Robert Gates isn’t convinced that a troop surge will affect the outcome.  Vice President Joe Biden opposes a troop surge, seeking a new strategy attacking al-Qaida and the Taliban with technology, like predator drones, to avoid a Vietnam-like quagmire. 

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.