President Obama has generally done the right thing on Afghanistan. Most notably, he sent major reinforcements twice, first in early 2009 (17,000 troops) and then in late 2009 (30,000 more), thereby doubling the U.S. troop commitment. But each decision was only taken after considerable agonizing and only announced with numerous caveats and restrictions, the most famous of which was his pledge to begin withdrawing surge troops in July 2011.
Nor did Obama follow up by stumping the country to build support for the war effort. He has been notably hands-off about the whole war, refusing to engage in the kind of regular video teleconferences that President Bush regularly conducted with President Karzai (and Prime Minister Maliki in Iraq). Thus Obama has inadvertently given encouragement to our enemies, raising their hopes that they can wait us out. He has also given a green light for opponents of his policy within his own administration—whose ranks include Vice President Joe Biden, Gen. James Cartwright (vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and Lt. Gen. Doug Lute (the NSC’s Afghanistan policy coordinator)–to continue fighting a rearguard action to undermine and terminate the surge.
It is in this light that we should understand the New York Times headline this morning: “Steeper Pullout is Raised as Option for Afghanistan.” The article reports that:
President Obama’s national security team is contemplating troop reductions in Afghanistan that would be steeper than those discussed even a few weeks ago, with some officials arguing that such a change is justified by the rising cost of the war and the death of Osama bin Laden, which they called new “strategic considerations.”
I suspect it is more likely to say that “some members of President Obama’s national security team”—for names, see above—“are using the rising cost of the war and the death of Osama bin Laden as excuses to resurrect the anti-surge arguments that had been previously considered and rejected by the president.”
Excuses? Isn’t that a little harsh?
Not really.
As I have argued before, the cost of the war effort ($100 billion a year) is trivial when weighed against a national debt and a national economy of about $14 trillion. Especially considering that even opponents of the surge don’t propose to pull all U.S. troops out so they would save only part of the total expenditure.
Nor, as I have also argued before, is the death of Bin Laden a reason to leave Afghanistan since, whatever the fate of Al Qaeda, allied groups such as the Taliban and the Haqqani network remain a powerful threat. Our premature departure would plunge Afghanistan into a civil war whose only conceivable beneficiaries would be such extremist groups.
Perhaps this outcome would be compelled anyway if we were losing on the ground, but we’re not. The troops under General Petraeus’s command have made excellent progress in securing the key southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand. The Taliban remain a threat but they have been pushed out of many of their strongholds. Meanwhile Afghan Security Forces are growing larger and more capable thanks to a training program directed by the indefatigable Lt. Gen. Bill Caldwell.
Progress is palpable—but also tenuous. Withdrawing too many troops this summer is sure to sabotage the brave work currently being done by 100,000 U.S. troops and 40,000 allies. Even using the front page of the New York Times to signal that this is what might happen undermines the war effort and gives hope to the enemy.
President Obama needs to have the gumption to give his surge a fair chance to succeed—and the moxie to squelch its opponents within his administration whose leaks damage one of his signature policies.
