by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Oct. 9, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

      Reassessing Afghan strategy, President Barack Obama faces pressure from all sides to escalate an unpopular war whose outcome, regardless of troop increases, is far from certain.  U.S. Afghan War commander Gen. Stanley McCrystal, who recently completed a 66-page review, advocates adding 40,000 more troops.  When Obama campaigned in 2008, it was easy to paint a black-or-white picture with Iraq and Afghanistan.  He criticized former President George W. Bush for his obsession with Iraq, neglecting the real war on terror in Afghanistan.  While he urged an exit strategy in Iraq, he suggested he’d re-deploy troops to Afghanistan.  Now that he’s commander-in-chief, the president has serious reservations about bumping up U.S. troops beyond the 21,000 he added in March.  Barack must assess whether adding more troops adds to accomplishing the mission.

            Since adding extra troops last March, U.S. death rates have quintupled, now averaging about 80 deaths a month.  McChrystal sees more deterioration without adding significant numbers of troops.  Barack is trying to reset the Afghanistan mission, initially designed Oct. 7, 2001 as Operation Enduring Freedom to topple the Taliban government, believed sheltering Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.  While ranking GOP member of the senate Armed Services Committed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) seeks a 40,000-man “troop surge,” the president wants to redefine the mission.  Barack and Vice President Joe Biden continue to see Bin Laden, not the Taliban, as a global threat.  Continuing the war against the Taliban makes no sense without going after al-Qaida.  Obama and Biden want to redirect U.S. technology to eventually kill or capture Bin Laden and Taliban Chief Mullah Mohammed Omar.

            As the U.S. learned in Iraq, more boots on the ground translate into higher casualty rates.  Obama and Biden want to target al-Qaida and Taliban with predator drones’ technology and Special Forces.  “The troop resources request has certainly come up,” said an unnamed White House aid.  “But the large focus is strategy,” signaling that Obama won’t bend to pressure from his own Cabinet, generals or GOP critics.  Under Bush, the Afhgan mission abandoned the search for Osama bin Laden and morphed into defending the Karazi government from the Taliban.  Since declaring victory September 9, the Karzai government has been accused of voter fraud, calling into question the legitimacy of the election.  Obama must now decide whether or not to heed commanders request for more troops or come up with a new strategy designed to deal with recent developments.

            Karzai’s potential election fraud presents problems for U.S. going forward.  While Obama would like to hold the line against the Taliban, he also knows that the Afghan people won’t support an illegitimate U.S. puppet.  “The troop resource request has certainly come up,” said an unnamed White House aid.  “But the larger focus is on strategy,” signaling Obama’s reluctance to revert to the Bush-Cheney paradigm of only military intervention.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, while leaning toward honoring McChrystal’s troop requests, hasn’t been too keen on adding troops.  Bush and Cheney repeatedly justified troop increase in Iraq by claiming al-Qaida would take over the country.  Gates also worries about a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, insisting Obama would not let that happen.  “The president has a different obligation than his commanders,” said the White House aid.

            For years during the Iraq War, Bush and Cheney went with battlefield commanders.  Obama has reasserted his role as commander-in-chief, accepting responsibility for making key strategic decisions with respect to the wars.  Battlefield commanders seek the best possible way to fulfill their mission.  Barack has redefined the mission not to eradicate the Taliban but rather to prevent them from taking back Kabul.  “He needs to see this in a global context,” said the aid, referring to the short and long-term effect of the war.  If escalating the war to protect an illegitimate government robs the U.S. of the moral high ground in Afghanistan, then Barack sees fit to change the mission.  Barack believes in “linkage” between prosecuting the war and encouraging favorable relations with other Middle East countries.  He doesn’t want to win the battle and lose the war.

            Barack’s reluctance to rubber-stamp the request of battlefield commanders in Afghanistan stems from the fact that the U.S. failed its initial mission of getting Osama bin Laden or the Taliban’s Mullah Mohammed Omar.  Unlike al-Qaida, the Taliban is a nationalistic Islamic movement, attempting to reestablish its oppressive theocracy.  Had it not been for the Taliban support of Osam bin Laden, the U.S. probably wouldn’t have toppled the Taliban in 2001.  While the military has equated al-Qaida and the Taliban, the truth is that the two are separate and distinct.  Few experts believe the Taliban has ambitions behind Afghanistan and Pakistan, whereas al-Qadia seeks to destabilize world governments.  Had Mullah Mohammed Omar handed over Bin Laden in 2001, he’d probably be in power today.  Obama wants to rethink the mission before jumping ahead with more troops.

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.