Many More Troops to Head to Afghanistan

After hearing all the options for the troubled war, the president will go with his field commander’s plan.

By Andrew C. Schneider, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

October 5, 2009

Look for President Obama to go hard on Afghanistan. When the meetings and debates are over, all the arguments have been aired, and the generals in the field and the politicians in Washington have weighed in, the president will decide he has little choice but to order an escalation.

Obama will likely opt to send in 40,000 more troops, the number U.S. field commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal will request to bolster those already there -- 66,000 U.S. Army soldiers and Marines plus 39,000 from NATO and other allies.

With the reinforcements will come a much greater emphasis on counterinsurgency strategy. Troops will spend less time on fortified bases and in armored vehicles and more time out in the countryside. The aim will be to protect and build ties with Afghan civilians. The more secure the villagers and tribesmen feel, the more likely they are to cooperate in the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda. More focus on recruiting and training Afghans so they can play a bigger security role is a given, too.

Winning local support also means improving quality of life. The administration is likely to send a fresh wave of civilian aid workers and funding, both in chronically short supply since the invasion nearly eight years ago. Expect billions of new dollars for roads, water systems, education, health care and more.

A successful reconstruction will be even harder than in Iraq. “In Iraq, the development challenge was much less severe,” says Heather Hulburt, executive director of the National Security Network, a liberal leaning defense think tank. “You had infrastructure that was beaten down or destroyed but could be rebuilt. In Afghanistan, you have this 90% illiteracy rate, with people who have never seen a doctor. And Afghanistan has never had the level of governance Iraq had.”

Sorting out the mess of Afghanistan’s presidential election -- still unresolved amid allegations of widespread vote fraud -- will also be part of the solution. That will involve diplomatic, and possibly economic, pressure on President Hamid Karzai to come to some power sharing arrangement with the opposition. Unless their grievances are addressed, many of the supporters of former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah are likely to take up arms, adding a dangerous new dimension to the conflict. The White House will also lean on Karzai to do far more to clean up rampant, crippling government corruption.

The approach is a risky one for Obama, one that goes against public opinion. Many influential Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, are pushing for a radically different strategy: a U.S. mission narrowly focused on fighting al Qaeda, with few or no reinforcements, and a much faster build up of Afghan government forces to take over the fight against the Taliban.

While the counterinsurgency strategy is hardly guaranteed success, the alternative is more likely to end in failure. Obama will be reluctant to veto recommendations from McChrystal, the counterinsurgency expert he promoted just four months ago, after firing the previous commander. Against any backlash from liberals, Obama will be able to count on support from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.

To avoid a quagmire, he’ll set time limits, at least in his own mind. He knows he needs to show results relatively soon. Just as with the surge in Iraq, the new strategy is likely to mean a big jump in casualties for several months before security gains can be seen. Coalition military deaths have exceeded 70 per month since July, by far the highest level since the war began. By contrast, monthly deaths in Iraq haven’t exceeded 70 in the past two years.

While the insurgents can’t win a military victory over U.S. forces, more casualties -- such as were inflicted this weekend in an attack that killed eight soldiers -- will erode political support for the war at home. Obama does not want to become another Lyndon Johnson, letting an unpopular war split the Democratic Party, derail his domestic agenda and define his presidency. Similarly, McChrystal doesn’t want to echo Gen. William Westmoreland in Vietnam. He won’t add more and more troops if he concludes that a stalemate is the most he can hope for.

“Even optimists talk about several years and large amounts being spent on the counterinsurgency side,” says Lee Hamilton, former Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “You might be able to get those resources today, but can you get it in five years? Can you get it in 10 years? It’s doubtful the American people will support it for that length of time.”

Obama will give the new approach a year to 18 months to show results. If it does, he’ll look for ways to carry the U.S. commitment forward for five years or more, withdrawing troops slowly until new Afghan security forces can take over completely, and maintaining civilian aid until Kabul can do that job. If not, he’ll start looking for other options, including a palatable exit.

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.