Editorial: Obama Made the Wrong Decision in Afghanistan

Last night President Barack Obama announced his decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 troops.

President Obama announced Tuesday that he would speed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in coming months, but he vowed to start bringing American forces home in the middle of 2011, saying the United States could not afford and should not have to shoulder an open-ended commitmentPromising that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion,” Mr. Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
“America, we are passing through a time of great trial,” Mr. Obama said. “And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.”
The military escalation Mr. Obama described and defended in his speech to a national television audience and 4,000 cadets at the United States Military Academy here, the culmination of a review that lasted three months, could well prove to be the most consequential decision of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
In his 33-minute address, he sought to convince an increasingly skeptical nation that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the continued existence of Al Qaeda across the border in Pakistan — what he called a “cancer” on the region — were direct threats to the United States, and that he could achieve the seemingly contradictory goals of expanding American involvement in the war even as he sought to bring it to a close.
The scene in the hall was striking and somber: row after row of cadets, in their blue-gray uniforms, listening intently to a strategy that could put many of them in harm’s way. “If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said. “So no, I do not make this decision lightly.” He called on foreign allies to step up their commitment, declaring, “This is not just America’s war.”
He delivered a pointed message to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, saying, “The days of providing a blank check are over.”
Addressing critics who have likened Afghanistan to Vietnam, Mr. Obama called the comparison “a false reading of history.” And he spoke directly to the American people about the tough road ahead.
“Let me be clear: none of this will be easy,” Mr. Obama said. “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.”
With the economy weak and the issue of jobs foremost on Americans’ minds, the president conceded that the new strategy would carry an expensive price tag, which he put at an additional $30 billion in the first year.
Yet with some Democrats talking of a war surtax, Mr. Obama offered no details of how he intended to pay for his new policy, saying only that he was “committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.”
White House advisers said they expected the administration would do so in the coming weeks, as officials including Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify on Capitol Hill starting Wednesday.
The approach laid out by Mr. Obama — not so much a new strategy as a doubling down on the one he embraced earlier this year — incorporated the basic goals and came close to the force levels proposed in the counterinsurgency plan that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, put forward in September.
In that report, General McChrystal said, in stark language, that unless significantly more troops were sent, the war in Afghanistan was likely to be lost.
But by including an explicit timetable to begin a withdrawal, Mr. Obama highlighted the seemingly conflicting pressures defining the debate over how to proceed: to do what is necessary to ensure that the region is not a launching pad for attacks on the United States and its allies, and to disengage militarily as quickly as possible.
Senior administration officials suggested, however, that any initial withdrawal starting in mid-2011 could be very limited, depending on the military situation at that point.
“The pace, the nature and the duration of that transition are to be determined down the road by the president based on the conditions on the ground,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy.
The initial political reactions showed the crosscurrents facing the White House. Republicans applauded the buildup of troops but questioned the commitment to a timetable for bringing them home.
“Setting a draw-down date before this surge has even begun is a mistake, and it sends a mixed message to both our friends and our enemies regarding our long-term commitment to success,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.
But among many Democrats, the response ranged from noncommittal to outright opposition.
“I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues — like our economy — to deal with in this country,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York.
Mr. Obama is calculating, administration officials said, that the explicit promise of a drawdown will impress upon the Afghan government that his commitment is not open-ended…

Inserted from <NY Times>
You have heard nothing on this subject from me, because I committed to withhold my decision until after I heard what Obama had to say.
I am already hearing cries from the left that Obama has betrayed his progressive base.  That is not true.  Obama campaigned on increasing the US troop level in Afghanistan.  I supported and voted for him knowing that, so I am not surprised and will not withdraw my support from him, because he is doing what he said he would do.  Up until very recently, I supported increased involvement in Afghanistan.  What changed my mind was the Bush-style election and the revelation of the depths of corruption in the government of the Bush/GOP puppet, Hamid Karzai.
Obama correctly disclosed that we got to where we are in Afghanistan through years of mismanagement of that war.  He has based his plan on three components.  First is to control the cities and large towns.  Second is to fight the corruption.  Third is to maintain a presence in the border area because of Pakistan.  I believe that he is honestly trying to do the right thing, but he’s depending on bad advice.  The USSR tried to control the cities and large towns with 500,000 troops.  I do not see how we can do so with 100,000.  He did not make a case for how he intends to control the corruption.  The Karzai regime is just as corrupt as the Bush/GOP regime.  The corruption pervades the nation.  Even Karzai’s brother is one of the world’s biggest drug lords.  He also did not tie in how operations in Afghanistan will stabilize Pakistan.  My guess is that he intends to backstop Pakistani forces at the border, as they go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in their own country.  If I’m correct, that is the one part of the strategy that does make sense, but that could be accomplished without increasing troop levels.  In my opinion, Obama has made the wrong decision.
Here are the problems, as I see them.  They are not in order of importance.  First, we are on one side of a tribal war that has been going on for hundreds of years.  For all intents and purposes the Taliban are the leaders of the Pashtun tribe.  That complicates the matter, because Pashtun territory extends to large areas of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Second, we do not have enough troops to do the job.  In my opinion, Afghanistan will be no better off in eighteen months than it is now.  Third, the Afghan people now see us as invaders.  Fourth, we cannot circumvent Karzai without leaving a power vacuum there.  Fifth our troops are exhausted.  Most of the 30,000 will already have served several tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. The suicide rate among our troops is the highest it has ever been.  They have spent so little time at home that their families are breaking down.  They need a rest.  Sixth, we will have no troops left to deal with whatever future threat could materialize.  Seventh, Obama has dumped financing the war on Congress with no suggestions about where to get the money.  Seventh and most important, we cannot afford this war.  Repuglicans are already calling to delay health care reform due to increased war expenses.  The $30 billion figure we keep hearing is only the cost of the increase.  The entire war will cost almost $100 billion per year.  We have 45 million people without health care.  We have crumbling infrastructure.  We have high unemployment.  Millions of  Americans are losing their homes.  Our education system has fallen behind most of the world.  Portland, Oregon, now sixty miles from the coast is about to become an oceanfront community.  Which of these priorities will we tank to pay for this war?
Here are the good points, as I see them.  First, Obama denied McChrystal the ten years he wanted, promising to start withdrawal in eighteen months.  I admit that I’m skeptical that he will follow through.  He also needs to reveal how long withdrawal will take.  Second, he is not financing the war off budget the way Bush did.  Third, he has rejected the no bid contracts so loved by Bush/GOP war profiteers.  Fourth, and most important, if McConJob and Mooseolini had won in 2008, we would be trying to conquer both Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably Iran as well.
Overall, I am disappointed in Obama’s decision, and I shall oppose it vigorously.  However, I want to make it clear that I reject the war without rejecting the man.  I remain thankful that Obama is President rather than a goose-stepping Republican.  I just wish he had listened to Keith Olbermann the night before last.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy