Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, December 10, 2009

On Tuesday, December 1, President Barack Obama gave a primetime speech to the American public outlining his strategy going forward in the war in Afghanistan.

The thrust of the plan is a three-pronged approach intended to bring a successful end to our involvement there. The components were a commitment of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to stabilize the region; a civilian effort to provide security; and a partnership with Pakistan to combat the threat of terror in the border region.

While the address given before cadets at West Point Military Academy was far from Obama’s most eloquent and effective oration, I felt he presented a well-structured argument for an escalation of troops and a change of strategies with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He dismissed criticisms from those who felt he took too much time to deliberate something as simple as dispatching young men and women into harm’s way, by discussing the weight of the decision and the fact that none of the existing requests called for action sooner than this near-immediate surge. He answered other critics who think we should remain in open-ended occupation there, by determining a timetable and exit strategy, something antithetical to the previous administration’s stay-the-course approach.

I found myself taking a hard look at my own opinions on Afghanistan. I have always recognized that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated from strongholds in the region, and one of my greatest criticisms of the Bush administration was that it missed opportunities to capture al Qaeda leadership there because of a preoccupation with engaging in a war of choice in Iraq. So, when Obama spoke of the threat to national security that a strengthening al Qaeda would be, I couldn’t help but agree.

The president also spoke of the decline in conditions and the growing danger to Afghans and to our troops. I have to agree again. I see the growing dangers and I know that his mention of the problem reflects the assessments of the commander on the ground General Stanley McChrystal; ambassadors, and other experts. I accept that the security of our forces is – and should be – of primary concern to their commander in chief. I support any efforts to ensure that security.

That said, I found much of Obama’s announcement troubling. There is a tendency within mass media, and even with policy-makers, to oversimplify the situation. An outcry was spun into a frenzy by pundits who posited that Obama’s refusal to commit troops immediately upon McChrystal’s request was a sign of weakness. To me this deliberation signaled an understanding by the president that Afghanistan was a complex problem. The country is embroiled in a long civil war. Tribal conflicts beset the region. Corruption is rampant and hinders the function of government and civil bodies.

Furthermore, Obama’s description of that government was less than promising. While he admitted that the recent re-election of Afghan President Hamid Karzai was marred by corruption, he claimed that the Karzai government was “consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.” I would have felt more confident about support of an election that represented the will of the Afghan people. Unfortunately, the common mistrust among Afghanis of their governing powers is only exacerbated by our long-term presence there.

My apprehension about further commitment to this mission is echoed by many others. Former U.S. State Department representative to Zabul Province Matthew Hoh resigned in September from that position in protest stating that he failed “to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties and expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war.” Likewise Congressman Eric Massa of New York’s 29th district has been vocal in his opposition to expanding the troop levels in Afghanistan. Among his reasons, he lists the enormous cost of the war at a time when our national treasury is strapped with debt and other commitments.

The economic cost of this war has become a focus of attention even within Congress. The Pentagon’s comptroller’s office submitted a recent report to congressional leaders in order to justify figures the administration has been using to valuate the proposed Afghanistan strategy. An estimated cost of $1 billion per 1,000 has been used to come up with the $30 billion Obama said would be spent in the next twelve months. As justification of part of that expenditure the Pentagon released the fact that a gallon of gasoline used to power vehicles and aircraft in the region costs an alarming $400. The details of the process of transporting fuel to the field (which contributes to this cost, are outlined in an October 15 article from The Hill) culminate in a figure known as the “fully burdened cost.” According to some analysts the fully burdened cost of fuel can be as high as $1,000 per gallon. The human toll of this war is alarming enough. The financial price tag in the midst of our crippled economy is staggering.

I look at my daughters, aged 19 and 21, and I realize the enormous price sending 30,000 American sons and daughters (the majority of them similar in ages). Then I look at the complexity of the situation and the near futility of the stated mission. Then I look at the double standard many employ with their support of committing human and financial resources to this war, while complaining about the tax burden of providing affordable health care to U.S. citizens. With these factors in view, I cannot lend my support to Obama’s proposed strategy in Afghanistan.

No comments: