The Obama Surge in Afghanistan—Smart Move?
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
As promised during the presidential campaign, President Obama is dramatically stepping up the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.
As my colleague (and next-door-office neighbor) reports:
Officials say that they will make no further deployment decisions until the White House completes its Afghanistan strategy review, which they estimate will happen in late March. In the meantime, McKiernan noted this week that "even with these additional forces, I have to tell you that 2009 is going to be a tough year."
There is clear consensus about that around the halls of the Pentagon. Even as units rapidly prepare to depart, senior military officials are struggling to respond to a series of dangerous twists in the troubled region, some of which have led them to doubt whether troops will be able to blunt an increasingly brutal insurgency without a clearer sense of what, exactly, victory in Afghanistan resembles.
It's a serious gamble for the president who campaigned against one war and is now poised to embrace another. And questions remain about whether it will work. Over in our weekly digital edition, we have an interesting argument over whether this is a smart strategy.
John Nagl from the Center for a New American Security argues that an Afghan surge is necessary:
American goals in Afghanistan have suffered from the most fundamental of all strategic errors: insufficient resources to accomplish maximalist goals.
He goes on to explain that while more U.S. troops are necessary, in the long term the Afghans must fend for themselves.
Andrew Bacevich, a military historian at Boston University, takes the opposite view, arguing that between 9/11 and now we've lost our focus and purpose.
Both pieces are worth a read. If you haven't, you can subscribe to our weekly edition here.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
- Read more by Robert Schlesinger.
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
- Read more about Afghanistan.
Tags: Afghanistan | military strategy | Barack Obama | military | War in Afghanistan (2001-) | Obama administration
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (6) | Print
Reader Comments
Afgahnistan
The majority of Afghan people embrace the Taliban form of religion and government and it should be of NO interest to the United States. Al Qaeda must be stopped but US cannot ever win by failing to recognize the will of the Afghan people just as we have no right to beat the Pakistanis into democratic life. America is officially a republic but majority rule forces different forms of government on the American people. Let us win our own country rather than continue to try to win other countries by forcing our values on their people.
Iran -- yea, OK -- Afghanistan -- Disaster
You can critique Bush for Iran, but at least in Iraq there were political groups that could be developed to the point where the could likely restore a functional and "friendly" government.
None of this exists in Afghanistan. We are going to lose a lot of "our boys and girls" in Afghanistan for nothing.
I support out anti-terrorist efforts world wide, but don't support the idea of losing even one American life in Afghanstan. The "nukes" idea is not really all that bad. Let's draw a line in the sand and let Afghanistan (and others know) that as long as you mind your own business, you can lead the life you wish. Step out-ot-line and pose a threat to the US, and your gone. (Second guy in line will get the message pretty quickly).
Afghanistan
It hasn't been shown to my satisfaction that there is any justification for fighting the Taliban. For all I know, the relationship between al Qaida and the Taliban may be no closer than that between the US and the Kurdish PKK terrorists, i.e., an accommodation of parties sharing the same territory because of lack of resources and lack of conflict of interests sufficient to fight over. Should the US make war on the PKK at the behest of the Turks? Seems like the Turks could accuse the US of harboring PKK terrorists during its occupation of Iraq. This seems to be all the logic there is to our fighting the Taliban. I've never heard that the Taliban were interested in sending terrorists to the US. There interests are probably limited to regaining control of their own country, or part of it, which might make for negotiations. Bribe them as we are bribing the Sunnis and call it a stroke of genius like the Iraq surge.
If we can't get bin Laden, what is the point of staying in Afghanistan? Stimulus?
advertisement
