The Afghan Dilemma

The Washington Post's editorial analysis of the upcoming announcement by the President regarding Afghanistan probably represents the inside the Beltway conventional wisdom...

PRESIDENT OBAMA is expected to announce on Tuesday a substantial escalation of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan: more training for the Afghan army, more support for Afghan governance and tens of thousands more American troops. It is a difficult choice but also the right one. While there is no guarantee that the new measures will reverse what is now a losing effort, the alternatives under consideration -- from a more limited counterterrorism strategy to maintaining the current force -- have been tried and have failed. While sending more Americans to war will entail a painful cost in lives, abandoning Afghanistan to civil war or rule by the Taliban would be immoral -- and would endanger key American interests.

Mr. Obama's prolonged deliberations and some of his public comments have made clear that he will embark on this new course reluctantly. That is understandable, given the problems in Afghanistan and the lack of Democratic support for an expanded war. Yet once he has chosen his strategy, it's vital that the president commit himself fully to its success. That requires sending enough troops to reverse the Taliban's momentum and describing the new commitment in a way that will convince Afghans, allies, the Taliban and the leaders of neighboring Pakistan that the United States is determined to succeed. It also means avoiding hedges and conditions that could doom the escalation before it begins.

Note that the Post doesn't take the time to point out that the "other strategies" that have been tried an failed were ones largely being pushed by Vice President Joe Biden, but we'll leave that aside for a second. My biggest problem with this decision is not the decision itself, but that it took so friggin' long. This is a White House that wants massive domestic policy programs passed at the drop of a hat. The President appoints a general to run point in Afghanistan, then spends two months or so considering competing viewpoints? And these viewpoints are ones that have failed before? There is credence to the idea that Obama needed coverage from his left wing base via domestic initiatives like health care reform featuring a public option -- no matter how crappy the plan may be -- before he could move forward on putting more troops in Afghanistan. Yes, I'm a terrible cynic, but tell me why I shouldn't think this way.

Jennifer Rubin's right on the mark...

Here Obama has made his own job worse. By empowering the likes of Joe Biden and his domestic policy advisers to second-guess the recommendation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and to warn openly of the domestic consequences of embracing the only viable plan for victory, the president has signaled that he’s looking over his shoulder. The sole target of his concern has not been the enemy and the horrendous potential consequences of a halfhearted effort. Instead he’s been fixated on his left-wing base. He’s obsessed over an exit strategy, forgetting that his predecessor won a war without one and that George W. Bush’s wartime troubles stemmed not from failing to promise an end date but from letting a losing strategy persist too long. Obama’s also muddied the waters on the identity of the enemy and whether we can achieve “victory,” a word never uttered but essential to leading a war effort.

The reason it's most essential is that any enemy will keep fighting if it believes it can defeat you due to superior will. By waiting this long to follow through on the general's suggestion, the President has made it appear that he's not committed to winning. If you're on the other side, this perception means you're unlikely to give up. If you an undecided Afghan civilian, you may find it more tempting to side with the Taliban -- after all, you know they're more likely to stick around.

What most worries me most about Obama's actual decision to commit to McChrystal's strategy is that I'm not sure he believes in it, which is even worse. If he isn't committed to following through on it, then the strategy is probably doomed.