Broder: Enough Afghan Debate

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

The cost of indecision is growing every day. Americans, our allies who have contributed their own troops to the struggle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the Afghans and their government are waiting impatiently, while the challenge is getting worse.

When Obama became commander in chief, his course of action seemed clear. He was bent on early withdrawal from Iraq and an increase in resources and emphasis on winning in Afghanistan -- the struggle he repeatedly called "a war of necessity."

He sent 21,000 more troops to hold it together through the Afghan election and named two generals, Stanley McChrystal to run the war and the retired Karl Eikenberry to manage the politics and reconstruction from the ambassador's office in Kabul.

McChrystal came up with a new plan of battle, emphasizing protection of population centers and requiring as many as 40,000 more troops. Eikenberry, we now know, balked, giving voice to the widespread fear that Hamid Karzai, the carry-over winner of the election that the ambassador helped arrange, was too weak and corrupt to govern the country effectively, even with an enlarged American force keeping order.

Their disagreement was echoed and amplified throughout the Obama administration. The secretaries of defense and state came down on McChrystal's side; the vice president and many on the White House political staff with Eikenberry.

The president, notwithstanding his earlier rhetoric and actions, has hesitated to resolve the issue. Obama needs to remember what Clark Clifford, one of Harry Truman's closest advisers, said: that the president "believed that even a wrong decision was better than no decision at all."

While Obama deliberates, his party in Congress shows increasing reluctance to make an all-out commitment to the war effort. The chairmen of two key Senate committees, Foreign Relations and Armed Services, are arguing for retraining Afghan troops -- if they can even be found -- and turning over more of the burden of fighting to them.

Meantime, events in Afghanistan support McChrystal's prediction that delay in expanding the U.S. troop commitment will almost certainly lead to gains for the Taliban and greater risk for U.S. and allied troops.

In all this dithering, it's easy to forget a few fundamentals. Why are we in Afghanistan? Not because of its own claim on us but because the Taliban rulers welcomed the al-Qaeda plotters who hatched the destruction of Sept. 11, 2001. The Taliban also oppressed its own people, especially women, but we sent troops because Afghanistan was the hide-out for the terrorists who attacked our country.

We knew that governing Afghanistan would never be easy. It had resisted outside forces through the ages, and its geography, tribal structure, absence of a democratic tradition and poverty all argued that once we went in, it would be hard to get out.

But George W. Bush said -- and Obama seemed to agree -- that withdrawal was not an option.

That imperative is reinforced by the presence of Pakistan, a shaky nuclear-armed power across a porous mountain border. If the Taliban comes back in Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda cells already in Pakistan will operate even more freely -- and nuclear weapons could fall into the most dangerous hands.

Given all of this, I don't see how Obama can refuse to back up the commander he picked and the strategy he is recommending. It may not work if the country truly is ungovernable. But I think we have to gamble that security will bring political progress -- as it has done in Iraq.

Obama did not believe that could happen there. But given what he inherited, and given what he has done so far, I think he has no choice but to play out that hand. If we can't afford to lose, then play to win.

Click to expand...

American said:

The floundering about wartime budget concerns is not good for troop morale or our image in the ME. Either we're there to win, or we're half-assed. Right now it appears half-assed. I say, **** or get off the pot; stay to win, or pull out now.

Click to expand...

The Prof said:

2. The reason Obama is permanently morassed in the mountains on the moon is because of the emphasis he placed on this "right war" in his crusade-like campaign.

Click to expand...

The Prof said:

Obama's indecision telegraphs to our allies, in NATO and Afghanistan, that his commitment to victory is reluctant, lukewarm, at best.

Click to expand...

2. The reason Obama is permanently morassed in the mountains on the moon is because of the emphasis he placed on this "right war" in his crusade-like campaign.

Click to expand...

He needed at the time to convince the electorate he was not your traditional anti-military, blame-America-first democrat.

Click to expand...

Whip Comes Down said:

Define victory in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse morassed

Click to expand...

Democrats have never been anti-military.

Click to expand...

The Prof said:

winning in afghanistan

Click to expand...

Erod said:

Leaving Afghanistan would be a big mistake. However, keeping our fine troops there under the direction of this abortion of a president doesn't seem right either.

Click to expand...

Whip Comes Down said:

The military loves President Obama, bro.

Click to expand...

Whip Comes Down said:

What is your idea of a win in Afghanistan?

Click to expand...

Whip Comes Down said:

The military loves President Obama, bro.

Click to expand...

Whip Comes Down said:

The military loves President Obama, bro.

Click to expand...