The Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran, writing from Kandahar, lays out the either/or of Afghanistan this morning, and concludes:
All the options Obama faces in Afghanistan are unpalatable. With Iraq, when presented with a set of troop-withdrawal timelines this year, the president took the middle way. He has shown similar instincts on health-care reform and the detention of terrorism suspects. With Afghanistan, however, that may be the most perilous path.
The idea of sending thousands more troops will be a tough sell to Congress. Pulling back to a far more narrow mission could open Obama to charges of flip-flopping -- he told veterans as recently as last month that the conflict in Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" that is fundamental to American security. Splitting the difference could have the advantage of winning over moderates in both parties, as well as voters who have begun to question the extent of the U.S. commitment there.
But Obama may want to resist that lure. Although the middle ground is often safe political terrain, it can be the riskiest spot on the battlefield.
Frank Rich lays out the case -- no, the imperatives -- for getting out of Afghanistan. There is a real parallel to Vietnam and plenty of good reasons for Obama to see the situation as politically perilous no matter what he decides to do. But we knew that before he was elected and so did he. It's close to a no-win situation.
Gordon Goldstein has written a new book about the mess Kennedy and Mac Bundy, his national security adviser, found themselves in. The Vietnam parallel works only partially, but the pressure from the military is much the same. I'd go a step further than Rich and call it pressure from the military industrial complex (which now must include the media) , but still...
The remarkable parallels to 2009 became clear last week, when the Obama administration’s internal conflicts about Afghanistan spilled onto the front page. On Monday The Washington Post published Bob Woodward’s account of a confidential assessment by the top United States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, warning that there could be “mission failure” if more troops aren’t added in the next 12 months. In Wednesday’s Times White House officials implicitly pushed back against the leak of McChrystal’s report by saying that the president is “exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan.”As Goldstein said to me last week, it’s “eerie” how closely even these political maneuvers track those of a half-century ago, when J.F.K. was weighing whether to send combat troops to Vietnam. Military leaders lobbied for their new mission by planting leaks in the press. Kennedy fired back by authorizing his own leaks, which, like Obama’s, indicated his reservations about whether American combat forces could turn a counterinsurgency strategy into a winnable war.
Kennedy had dissenters within his administration. Obama does, too. Joe Biden is one.
One prime alternative is the counterterrorism plan championed by Biden. As The Times reported, it would scale back American forces in Afghanistan to “focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan.”
Rich believes (let's hope he's right) that Obama is taking his time -- resisting pressures to move quickly.
Obama’s decision, whichever it is, will demand all the wisdom and political courage he can muster. If he adds combat troops, he’ll be extending a deteriorating eight-year-long war without a majority of his country or his own party behind him. He’ll have to explain why more American lives should be yoked to the Karzai “government.” He’ll have to be honest in estimating the cost. (The Iraq war, which the Bush administration priced at $50 to $60 billion, is at roughly $1 trillion and counting.) He will have to finally ask recession-battered Americans what his predecessor never did: How much — and what — are you willing to sacrifice in blood and treasure for the mission?
The human cost (notably to Afghan women and children) of leaving is high. The human cost of staying is no lower. The political, moral, and human cost of allowing war profiteers within the military and at its edges to keep America in Afghanistan is simply untenable. And even if we get out now, we aren't getting rid of those very powerful enemies living right in the heart of America.
As Frank Rich notes, Gordon Goldstein "does not believe that a change in course in Afghanistan would be a disaster for Obama’s young presidency."
"His greatest qualities as president,” Goldstein says, “are his quality of mind and his quality of judgment — his dispassionate ability to analyze a situation. If he was able to do that here, he might more than survive a short-term hit from the military and right-wing pundits. He would establish his credibility as a president who will override his advisers when a strategy doesn’t make sense.”
WaPo's Bob Woodward focuses entirely on a long phone interview with General James L. Jones about Afghanistan and Obama's decision-making process and what the situation in Afghanistan requires. Woodward ends with this:
Jones said the challenges Obama faces in the Afghan war are more "complex" and "bigger than the surge" decision President George W. Bush faced in Iraq three years ago.
In early 2007, Bush ordered the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq as a "surge" to assist in the counterinsurgency strategy of protecting Iraqis. The surge is now regarded as one of several factors that helped stabilize Iraq and reduce violence there.
"This is bigger than the surge," Jones said. "This is more complex. There are more moving parts."
