by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Nov.13, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

            En route to Beijing, President Barack Obama nears the end of a lengthy deliberation on whether or not to add more U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  Recent developments about a fraudulent election make a prolonged U.S. and NATO commitment more precarious, where the public questions whether the costs outweigh the benefits.  Recent unconfirmed reports indicate that the president is about grant Gen. Stanley McChyrstal’s request for up to 40,000 more troops.  Barack’s painstaking decision carries unknown risks for his presidency, especially if a new troop surge doesn’t change the outcome.  Speaking at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, whose country spent 10 bloody years in Afghanistan, said 40,000 more troops wouldn’t change the outcome.  Gorbachev sees the U.S. in a losing battle against al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents.

            Battling on the home front for national health care, Obama faces stiff headwinds in the U.S. Senate, where the House narrowly passed Nov. 7 its version of health care reform [220-215], with only one Republican supporting the legislation.  Pushing for a $1.2 trillion package, Barack knows the already astronomical federal budget deficit runs around $1.7 trillion and growing.  With 10 U.S. states nearing bankruptcy, it’s a matter of time before the federal government ponies up billions of taxpayer dollars to keep the states afloat.  Escalating the Afghan war would no doubt add to growing deficits, hurting the economy’s long-term growth.  When Barack calculates his next move in Afghanistan, he needs to take into account its effect on the economy.  All indications point toward more damage to the economy from growing budget deficits and runaway defense spending.

            Recent surveys of U.S. troops in Afghanistan show deteriorating morale, in part from a confused mission.  When President Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom Oct. 7, 2001, the mission was to punish the perpetrators of Sept. 11 and the government that coddled Osama bin Laden.  Eight years later, the Bin Lade remains at large and the Taliban unchecked, mounting a bloody guerrilla war against the U.S. and NATO.  While the U.S. military asks for more troops, few ask to redefine the mission.  More recent reassessments have the U.S. supporting the corrupt Hamid Karzai government and going after the opium trade, an impossible task.  Unable to achieve its objectives, it’s no wonder U.S. troops remain frustrated.   After adding 21,000 troops in March, Obama knows there are no guarantees increasing troops today.  If casualty rates spike, Barack will be blamed for a failed strategy.

            Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney argued that Iraq was the central front in the war on terror, pouring more blood and treasure down a bottomless pit.  When Barack entered office and deescalated Iraq, the Iraq government didn’t fall as Bush and Cheney once predicted.  Barack campaigned for an exit strategy in Iraq and a new approach to Afghanistan.  Ten months into office, Barack realizes the situation isn’t so black-and-white.  No general in the battlefield or at the Pentagon can tell Obama how to recalculate U.S. strategy.  Bush and Cheney never established a link between Iraq and terrorists responsible for Sept. 11.  Barack now misjudges the link between Afghanistan and U.S. national security.  Whatever the Taliban did before Sept. 11, Bin Laden still remains at large.  Today’s mission must be reset before sending more troops into harm’s way.

            Most of Afghanistan outside Kabul has been sold off to warlords and remnants of the Taliban. It’s the Karzai government that’s made the deals, essentially ceding the country to warlords and militias with close ties to the Taliban.  There’s simply no evidence that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan prevents a Taliban or al-Qaida takeover when Karzai has already ceded territory to both groups.  Karzai’s survival over the last eight years is proof of his deal-making with the same enemies the U.S. now spills blood and treasure trying to defeat.  When you consider the costs of escalating the Afghan war, it’s economic suicide for a country reeling from the worst recession since the Great Depression.  More budget deficits for war or health care doesn’t help the U.S. climb out its current economic hole.  Before Barack commits more troops to Afghanistan, he needs look at the big picture.

            Low troop morale in Afghanistan is due to more than fatigue, exhaustion and multiple tours of U.S. enlisted personnel.  It’s directly related to a failed mission of killing or capturing Osama bin Laden and top Taliban leaders, now hiding in the ungoverned mountainous lands along the Pakistan border.  Forty-thousand more U.S. troops won’t change the opium farmer’s grip on the country or reverse the Taliban’s fight to, one day, return to power.  No amount of U.S. blood and treasure can stop a nationalistic movement, a painful lesson learned in a war called Vietnam.  Looking at the big picture, Obama must reset the mission and figure out the resources needed for a face-saving way out.  Going down the same tracks can only lead to the same outcome:  More losses to the U.S. treasury and military.  Barack must reset the mission to save his domestic and foreign policy agenda.

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.