Barack's Mortal Wound

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Dec. 2, 2009
All Rights Reserved.                    

        Giving the Republican Party an ealry Christmas gift, President Barack Obama makes official Dec. 1 in a nationally televised speech at West Point his decision to escalate the Afghan War, adding as many as 34,000 troops at a cost of at least $75 billion a year.  Agonized over for three months, after nine meetings of his war Cabinet, Barack announces a new counterinsurgency and training strategy, designed to drive the Taliban and al-Qaida out of entrenched positions, reinforce the Karzai government and eventually train new Afghan police and security forces.  Barack’s new strategy has the blessings of Centcom Commander Gen. David Petraeus and current Afghan Commader Gen. Stanley McCrystal, the same basic strategy credited with turning around Iraq.  Only one small difference:  The U.S. military won’t have an easy time buying off the Taliban, a nationalistic Islamic movement.

            Barack hopes to turn the tide, driving the Taliban and al-Qaida out of fortified positions, largely supported by Afghanistan’s multibillion-dollar opium trade.  For years, the Taliban has served as a de facto militia, protecting the wealth of the world’s most powerful drug cartel, making the Columbian mafia look like Mickey Mouse.  While unlikely to announce a war on the opium trade, Barack tries to sell his troop surge as necessary to defend U.S. national security.  He’s bought the old Bush-Cheney idea that Saddam’s Iraq and today’s Afghanistan were connected to Sept. 11.  While more skeptical about Iraq, Barack has bought, lock-stock-and-barrel, the notion that today’s Taliban and remnants of al-Qaida in Afghanistan are actively planning the next terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland.  Barack swallowed Pentagon logic that more U.S. troops would “finish the job.”

            Adding up to 34,000 more U.S. troops would bolster the force to 102,000, to be phased in over the next two years, a whopping number when you consider the U.S. continues to maintain over 100,000 troops in Iraq.  Barack wants NATO to add an additional 7,000-10,000, troops, an unrealistic figure when you consider that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown barely scrapeed together an additional 500 troops.  “It’s probably the most important decision of his career,” said Karin Von Hippel, at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, a right-leaning think tank in Washington.  More than “important,” it could be disastrous, when you look at the corrupt Karzai government and Afghanistan’s history.  Speaking the Brandenburg Gate Nov. 9, former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, whose country wasted nine bloody years in Afghanistan, doubted more troops would change the outcome.

            Barack’s “exit strategy” involves a troop surge designed to do in Afghanistan what it did in Iraq.  Unlike Iraq, it won’t be easy to buy off so-called “moderate” Taliban, whose fanatical commitment to Islamic extremism far exceeds the more secular Iraq, whose tribal leaders and war lords care more about money than religious ideology.  Barack faces stiff headwinds trying to explain the formidable costs, straining an already broken federal budget, pushing deficits toward $2 trillion.  “I know the president will touch on the costs.  I don’t expect to get overly detailed in the speech tomorrow,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, sidestepping the $64,000 question of how the federal treasury is supposed to accommodate escalating the Afghan War and paying for health care reform.  Barack’s critics will have a field day in next year’s midterm elections calling him on the carpet.

            Setting benchmarks for the Afghan government to augment police and security forces won’t reverse the damage done to the U.S. military and treasury.  Already stretched thin, the voluntary military can’t absorb the loss of a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, S.C., two Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky, and the 10th Mountain Division at For Drum, N.Y.  Expecting the Afghan army to go to 240,000 and police to 160,00 by Oct. 2013, raises real questions whether the corrupt Karzai government can lead the country.  “You will hear the president discuss that this is not open-ended,” said Gibbs, placing the responsibility on the Karzai government.  Escalating U.S. troops and pushing commitments out at least three years offers little relief to exploding budget deficits hurting chances of economic growth and eventual recovery.

            Barack’s new strategy offers few promises other than draining the tax base and assuring massive deficits into the foreseeable future.  While he reserves the right to modify his plan, his expected commitment of U.S. blood and treasure hands the GOP the best chance since Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Republican Revolution” of taking back Congress and the White House.  Obama’s cautious approach opens him up to more GOP criticism and alienates mainstream Democrats who want to deescalate both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Hope for a more progressive domestic and foreign policy agenda sprang from the expectation that the U.S. would transition from a war to peace economy.   When Barack won the Nobel Peace Prize Oct. 9, few thought he’d escalate the war, especially with so few guarantees.  Escalating the war doesn’t bode well for his approval ratings or next year’s midterm elections.

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.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.