Rich Lowry echoes the call for Obama to find his inner George W. Bush. It would be nice to think we can dispense with a difficult war in Afghanistan. It would be comforting to think we can conduct a high-tech war from Washington. And critics wary of war would just as soon not bother to see the consequences of retreat. But, as Lowry says, the reality is different, and the president’s task is clear:
He’ll have to convince the public that the war is necessary and winnable, when the charm of simply characterizing it as the “good war” in contrast to Iraq has worn off.
If we withdrew, the Taliban would take over swaths of the country and would likely host al Qaeda again. Pakistan would feel pressure to return to embracing the Taliban fully as its proxy in a war that would become a free-for-all for Afghanistan’s neighbors. This would strengthen the hand of extremists within Pakistan at the same time our credibility would have sustained a devastating blow.
The war is far from lost. Kabul is relatively safe, certainly compared with the hellish extremity of Baghdad in 2006. The areas that are in the worst shape in the South are those in which we have had the fewest forces. The population doesn’t want a reprise of Taliban rule. If we could recover in an Iraq that had descended to Dante’s seventh circle, Afghanistan is salvageable with enough resources and time.
As he contemplates his next move, Obama should ask an unexpected question: “What would Bush do?”
It seems the critics of the war effort can’t quite get their story straight. It’s just another failed effort in democracy. Or it’s more than that, but we can succeed without getting our hair mussed. Pete and Dan Senor have it right:
The war in Afghanistan is a crucial part of America’s broader struggle against militant Islam. If we were to fail in Afghanistan, it would have calamitous consequences for both Pakistan and American credibility. It would consign the people of Afghanistan to misery and hopelessness. And Afghanistan would once again become home to a lethal mix of terrorists and insurgents and a launching point for attacks against Western and U.S. interests. Neighboring governments—especially Pakistan’s with its nuclear weapons—could quickly be destabilized and collapse.
If you are convinced we are in a war against Islamic fundamentalists and defeat is not an option, then victory in Afghanistan is not optional either. Whatever the errors of the past and however inexpertly the salesmanship or conduct of the war has been, the issue is what we do now. On that score, Lowry, Kagan, Senor, and Pete have it right.