Washington Matters
Afghan Surge: Promise
And Peril for Obama
Obama's fate hinges on the war's outcome, not the fight in Congress
By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
December 2, 2009
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
While there’ll be much debate in coming weeks over the merits of the Afghanistan strategy President Obama outlined Tuesday night, the president is likely to get the congressional blessing he needs to quickly ramp up and then ramp down military involvement over the next 18 months.
Despite vigorous arguments over the merits of deploying 30,000 more troops in a war that is unpopular with the public and many Democratic lawmakers, Congress will get on board in the end. It takes a lot of political will to defy a president of one’s own party on a military matter. Figure on House and Senate leaders insisting -- and the White House agreeing -- on detailed progress reports over the coming months, but there will be no attempt to interfere with the battlefield strategy.
Efforts by war opponents to cut funding will be impassioned and reflect the desire of millions of Americans opposed to a costly and dangerous ongoing commitment in Afghanistan, but they’re bound to fall short, with most Republicans and many Democrats ultimately backing the plan. Efforts to institute a broad-based war tax to finance the operation will also fall short. There’s little chance of a tax hike as the economy still struggles to find better footing.
But securing funding is a small first step. Odds of everything going well and quickly are low. Military operations of this size rarely go exactly according to plan, and some setbacks should be expected. The geographical mountainous terrain is treacherous. There are long standing disputes, and cultural differences between rural areas and population centers can’t be turned around overnight. The ability of the government of President Hamid Karzai to be a strong partner and to eliminate serious corruption will be a constant question mark. The number of NATO troops that will be included in the surge (and whether they will participate in the tough combat roles) won’t be clear for months. Also unknown is how committed Pakistan will be in routing out al Qaeda elements along its border with Afghanistan and whether al Qaeda operations simply move to other areas, such as Somalia or Yemen, further complicating matters.
And what if Taliban insurgents cease fighting, figuring they’ll wait for the U.S. to leave and then rejoin their years-long insurgency? Would that be a short-term victory for Obama but a long-term defeat for his foreign policy and national security plan?
While total victory is out of the question, Obama is banking on being able to show real signs of progress within a reasonable period of time, hoping to point in time to several provinces and population centers that have been freed of insurgents, for instance, or sealing agreements in rural areas to destroy opium poppy fields or showing more high level al Qaeda chiefs killed.
Long term, though, he is staking much on eventual outcome of a complicated war effort that now has his signature on it. A troubled engagement marked by high casualties, an inability to turn back Taliban insurgents and a hasty withdrawal that is perceived as well short of victory would become a political nightmare for Obama, jeopardizing his reelection, even in the event of a much better domestic economy.
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy
Reader Comments (6)
Posted by: Rick Lapin at 12/03/2009 10:32:06 AM
Yes. How do you fight an enemy whose goal is to break your bank and thus your will and ability to wage war? Simple! You commit even more conventional resources to an unconventional war hoping for a quick knock-out that just ain't gonna happen. Obama is not just doing exactly what the Taliban wants (bad strategy at any time, against any opponent) -- by "assuring" us that we'll be out of there in 18 months, he is quite literally saying "Mission Accomplished" a year and a half in advance. But there's Big Money to be made Over There, since you and I pay the freight while the Big Boys reap the profits, it's okay: money's been the name of the war-game since Hector bought the farm in front of Troy, and any nation which has not learned that lesson already deserves exactly what it's going to get. And any nation that knows so little about war, even after spending nearly a decade at, that it can keep a straight face when a supposedly well-educated President claims to be able to predict a given outcome in a given frame of time -- when (as Elizabeth I of England noted) the predominant characteristic of wars is that "they have uncertain outcomes" -- will have no one but itself to blame when 18 months hence it is told "Oops! We kinda underestimated the severity of the task -- our bad! So sorry! But we hope this won't affect your vote ... " And you know what? I bet it won't ...
Posted by: Daniel Martin at 12/03/2009 11:18:26 AM
This is a politically inspired mistake by an indecisive president who lacks the true grit needed to make the hard decisions an executive must make. We should get out of Afghanistan. It is not our country. By setting a timetable aloud for our departure (Duh!), Obama is guaranteeing a resurgence of the Taliban and terrorism one year later. Should any of our boys and girls die for this futile policy?
Posted by: Rick Lapin at 12/03/2009 03:57:25 PM
UPDATE: Gee, what a surprise -- his handlers took it back. The guy just cannot stand in front of a group of people, a camera, perhaps even his own mirror, without telling that audience just exactly what he thinks it wants to hear.
Posted by: Alex Browning at 12/03/2009 08:23:03 PM
Obama's strategy is more focused on economic recovery than winning any stability. He is playing the best hand dealt him, and very well, as appears from some of the idiot commentaries. He's got safety from the democrats and he knows the Republicans can't object to the Flag waving. They won't give him $30 to reform health care, but they'll gladly give that much to go kill people on the other side of planet. 30000 soldiers means up to $30 billion expenditures, $100 billion in turnover, up to $300000 in salaries, and about $10 billion return to the treasury. Nothing boosts an economy faster than war. Roosevelt knew that, Obama knows that. The 18 month troop boost gives him 2 years breathing room for the economy to stabilize and absorb the returning soldiers. Sad that he has to resort to that kind of tactic to help people who won't help themselves.
Posted by: Rick Lapin at 12/04/2009 05:51:35 PM
Mr. Browning --Roosevelt's economy-lifting war was Total War: a vast channeling of American energy, manpower and resources into a world-wide conventional struggle against conventional states; Mr. Obama's futile whack-a-mole effort hasn't a fraction of that economy-revivifying potential. As for the whole Republicans-are-stymying-health-care issue (and I myself, sir, have never voted for a Republican in my life) last time I looked The Dems had a Super-Majority and don't NEED $30 from the 'Pugs. This is not statesmanship, amigo -- just your average garden-variety kowtow to the war-profiteers.
Posted by: Rick Lapin at 12/04/2009 06:46:27 PM
PS, Mr. Browning --You do realize that by your own war-is-good-for-the-economy logic, Bush's ruinous invasion of Iraq was an economic masterstroke, don't you? A position as "idiotic" (to use your rather endearing terminology) as it is cynical, and one which I doubt you were selling during the recent Presidential campaign (and no, I didn't vote for John McCain OR Barack Obama; we were not being offered a choice of direction, just a choice of what face was going to be put on that direction). Wise up, pal -- the M/I complex owns both parties, and they will bleed US taxpayers dry in pursuit of an endless and endlessly profitable no-decision war. Your guy's feet are made of the same clay Bush's was, and it is simply taking Obama supporters just as long to realize they've been had as it did Bush supporters: Both attempt to pin medals on guys who ought more properly to be in prison.