Arguments For
Following his election, President Obama shifted strategy. He agreed to send 21,000 more troops but also to devote most of them to train Afghan soldiers, not battle the Taliban, even though seven years of training Afghan soldiers had done little to build an Afghan military.The surge not only proved insufficient, but it deteriorated the situation further in favor of the Taliban, as McChrystal noted.
Still, McChrystal argues that too much has been invested in Afghanistan, in blood and dollars, to retreat now. Five factors argue strongly for a troop escalation:
- More than 1,300 foreign troops, including 850 American troops, have been killed so far in Afghanistan. Retreating would diminish their sacrifice to a mere waste of lives.
- Retreat would send the wrong message to Islamists and American enemies in the region, al-Qaeda among them, who would interpret the withdrawal as a victory and feel emboldened to resume assaults on American interests or the West more aggressively. Certainly, the Taliban's position in Afghanistan would be strengthened, and its return to power likelier.
- Afghanistan would possibly revert to open-ended civil war and a return to the 1990s' conditions when tens of thousands of Afghan civilians were massacred every year.
- Pakistan and possibly Saudi Arabia would more aggressively resume their support of the Sunni-dominated Taliban, which the two nations created in the 1990s as Pakistan's proxy force in Afghanistan and as a hedge against diminished American involvement in the region.
- American prestige would suffer a blow similar that the one it suffered after retreating from South Asia in the mid-1970s and from Lebanon in 1984.
Arguments Against
The United States and NATO forces have been waging a winless war in Afghanistan since 2001. After brief initial successes in 2001 and early 2002, when the Taliban fell and Afghans appeared ready to govern themselves again, the country took on the familiar characteristics of the quagmire it's been for any foreign troops that have presumed to control its territory since the days of Alexander the Great.Five factors argue strongly against sending more troops to Afghanistan:
- The 2009 troop "surge" hasn't worked. It hasn't built up an Afghan military. It hasn't taken control of more Afghan territory (it has lost it). It has not helped turn the tide against the Taliban. Yet more troops will not likely change the equation--not after a war that, by March 2010, will have lasted more than America's involvement in World War I, World War II and Korea combined.
- The footprint of foreign troops is working against American and Western attempts to turn Afghan hearts and minds in their favor. Foreign troops are increasingly seen as occupiers in the Soviet style, not as liberators. One reason: foreign troops are perceived as the chief support of an Afghan government that has no credibility in Afghan eyes.
- US and NATO troops have caused almost as many Afghan civilian deaths as the Taliban. Repeated U.S. air strikes that have resulted in the massacre of Afghans have, despite targeting and killing Taliban fighters as well, reinforced impressions among Afghans that foreign troops' brutality can be indistinguishable from the Taliban's.
- Al Qaeda was expelled from Afghanistan in 2001. The United States shouldn't be involved in nation-building while battling what is essentially an internal civil war between the Taliban's Pashtun-dominated militants and other ethnic minorities in Afghanistan.
- The notion that an American retreat would open Afghanistan back to al-Qaeda camps is a bogus argument considering that al-Qaeda is operating effectively in Pakistan, a nuclear power and an American ally. It's also a bogus argument because al-Qaeda could choose to operate in a number of wretchedly unstable countries like Afghanistan, including Somalia, Yemen and Sudan. It does not do so because it does not have popular support. Nor would it enjoy that support in Afghanistan, where the Taliban would not be likely to play host to al-Qaeda--and fall prey to B-52 bombings and missile strikes all over again.
Finally, there is no clear, defined, winnable aim in Afghanistan.
Where It Stands
The Pentagon, the Obama administration, Congress and the press are all battling over Obama's decision on sending more troops (or not), a decision that may not be made until November 2009. The Pentagon is pressuring Obama to cave to McChrystal's request. Even within the Obama administration, the president's advisers are split over what course to take."The competing advice and concerns fuel a pivotal struggle to shape the president’s thinking about a war that he inherited but may come to define his tenure," The New York Times reported. "Among the most important outside voices has been that of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired four-star Army general, who visited Mr. Obama in the Oval Office this month and expressed skepticism that more troops would guarantee success. According to people briefed on the discussion, Mr. Powell reminded the president of his longstanding view that military missions should be clearly defined."
The Pentagon officially sent word to commanders in Afghanistan to delay troop requests in order to give the administration time to review its long-term strategy in Afghanistan.
The outcome, whatever it may be, will redefine the Obama administration. It will likely not redefine Afghanistan.