Not that this is long past due as is, but with the leak of tens of thousands of documents that purport to paint a very bleak picture (I say purport because I haven’t read them – just the stories about them) of a war-turning-semi-occupation that is costing more troop deaths in 2009 than 2008 and 2007 combined (and on pace for 60% more in 2010 than 2009) – and hundreds of billions of dollars – this is the tipping point where it should be clear to even this administration that the curtain needs to be brought down on Afghanistan.
Over the past year or two, as Obama as started to double down in Afghanistan, as Commander replaces Commander and "the surge, part deux" was proposed – I’ve wondered aloud to many people (both online and offline) as to what the mission was now. In short – why are we still there now, and why are we doubling or tripling our presence after 6, 7 or 8 years. What is the goal? How will it be accomplished? And is it a goal that, given the current state of the economy here at home and the current state in Afghanistan that America can afford to pay?
Over the past year, more and more and more Americans are definitively saying "Hell, NO". And right now, there is a battle over the latest round of funding - a sum of around $30 billion that looks like it could be a referendum on whether continuing this disaster at the expense of fixing our roads, helping our economy, investing in education or jobs or pretty much anything else that $30 billion can pay for.
Based on the House vote (a 5 vote squeaker with a whole bunch of additional economic spending), this will soon become is something that will either come to a close (as more than 150 Democrats voted for in an amendment, or will be the responsibility of those who continue to push forward despite its unpopularity, its lack of vision and clarity in terms of a goal and it ever escalating cost in terms of life and funding. Oh yeah, and there’s that whole corruption in last year’s election thing going on as well.
In order to address the WikiLeaks documents – and quite frankly, it must address the underlying substance of the claims if it wants to make the case for another $30 billion and another 30,000 US troops – this administration (Obama, Gates and the leaders "on the ground") need to either acknowledge the past failures, provide a coherent reason and strategy that more lives and money should be spent and why suddenly this "strategy" will reverse years (and how many prior wars in Afghanistan) of failure.
If that course is chosen (especially if the posting of documents are condemned as opposed to the underlying information), then more than ever, Afghanistan will be Obama’s and the Democrats who vote for more funding to own. If hubris doesn’t get in the way of reality, then we should be hearing about an exit strategy.
Either way, this is the best chance progressives have seen in years to push for an exit strategy. Let’s not let that opportunity pass us by.