The big news today is, by far, President Obama's decision to send 30-40 thousand troops to Afghanistan. This news has created a passionate response from both sides of the issue. I would like to lokk at some other aspects of the debate.
While the troop numbers are the headline here, there are other aspects of the story just as important. From Marc Ambinder:
The strategy announcement will be replete with references to various off-ramps and benchmarks, and the commanders will be responsible for regularly certifying compliance with them. If the benchmarks, such as they are, are not met, Obama may well draw down American troops. He has been advised privately by former Gen. Colin Powell to design and implement an exit strategy.
This is not an open-ended commitment. I have thought for some time that President Obama would send additional troops to Afghanistan. For me, the key has been strategy and end game. As for strategy:
As part of its new plan, the administration, which remains skeptical of Karzai, will "work around him" by working directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior U.S. defense official told McClatchy.
The Obama administration has been developing the Compact for months in coordination with U.S. allies and Karzai's government. It's tried to keep the effort quiet so it could be presented as an Afghan initiative, according to several U.S. and European officials and the U.S. government document. "Afghans must lead," the document says.
The document outlines proposals for ceding greater power to authorities who run Afghanistan's 34 provinces and nearly 400 districts, including providing them with more development funds and the ability to direct them to projects that they think are most needed.
U.S. officials said Karzai also would be expected to implement new efforts to crack down on rampant corruption fueled by the country's production of opium, which is used to produce heroin, and to replace ineffective ministers with technocrats. Ministries that fail to improve could see international funds cut, they said.
There are many who believe that no additional troops should be sent under any circumstances, and that's a valid point. But we should also acknowledge that this strategy is not just a "pour troops in and see what happens" scenario. Consider this bit, again from Ambinder:
But his own national security team, led by Gen. James Jones, feels it has succeeded in convincing the commanders that time is not on their side, that the troop increase is, in essence, the last hard power maneuver in the U.S. playbook, and that external factors beyond the performance of U.S. troops would dictate the future. The commanders, in other words, do not have a free hand: they must utilize the troops to achieve the goals laid out by political leaders in Washington.
This is not open-ended, this is not indefinite. If goals are not met, there will be significant changes, including possible troop withdrawal. This is a smart move by the President, one we should appreciate as compared to the preceding administration.
Now, I would like to address some of the criticisms of the President's decision I've seen in comments in other diaries.
1. Obama should act like a Democrat.
Well, if I remember correctly, just about every Democratic candidate in last year's primary would have put more resources into Afghanistan. The two exceptions were Gravel(I think; I generally muted my TV every time he spoke), and Kucinich, because he is perfect in every possible way. The President campaigned on allocating more resources to Afghanistan, to "finishing the job". The decision to send more troops should not be a great shock.
2. Afghanistan is just like Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
This is a popular refrain, but it just isn't historically accurate. Neither Vietnam or Iraq attacked us before we invaded. The government of Afghanistan allowed the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 to use their country as a base of opperations, and the two groups hold near identical political views to this day.
Also, Vietnam was an all-American production, meaning that we were the only country involved. That is not the case in Afghanistan. Currently, there are 42,000 international forces in Afghanistan. And the international community is also involved in rebuilding and anti-corruption efforts.
In addition to international troop levels, there will be about 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after these additions. In Vitenam, LBJ increased U.S. presence from 16,000 in 1963 to 550,000 in 1968. The President has made it clear there will not be such an escalation in Afghanistan. Even if he wanted to, the resources simply are not available.
Another difference is casualty levels. To date, there have been 1,464 coalition deaths in Afghanistan. In 1967 & 1968, there were 1,000 deaths in Vietnam per month. While any casualty is a tragedy, to say that this war has reached Vietnam levels is simply not true.
There is one other issue I would like to address, and that is the idea of a "war tax". To this, I say: great! Let's do it. In fact, let's make it a permanent part of the tax code. Have it trigger whenever there are more than 25,000 American combat troops in one country. This would help pay for any future war, and also give pause before we decide to start one. I would also consider setting up the draft to trigger under similar conditions, but I would raise the troop requirement, maybe to 100,000.
This is a heated issue, and we all have strong opinions. I would only hope that we can have a reasoned, civilized discussion.