December 2, 2009
Column #1,475
Obama's Escalation: A Daring Gamble
By Mike McManus
"I have determined that it is in our national interest to send an
additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our
troops will begin to come home," said President Obama.
It is a daring gamble and is being attacked from both the left and the
right.
"The way you win wars is you break your enemy's will, not announce when
you are leaving," said Sen. John McCain, a former Navy pilot and
Republican presidential nominee. "A withdrawal date only emboldens
al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and
making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side
in this fight."
Polls show Republicans believe the war is worth fighting by 2-1.
By contrast, Democrats disagree by more than 2-1. In Congress
liberal Democrats oppose any escalation. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA,
asserted, "I disagree with the escalation. I worry that 30,000 more
troops will fuel the insurgency, not enhance security."
Obama could not satisfy both political extremes. However, his
careful deliberation has fashioned a gamble that appears to create a new
middle ground. His escalation of the war impressed most conservative
critics. His pledge to start withdrawing them in July, 2011 mollified
his liberal supporters.
Sen. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader concluded, "By laying out a
strategy that will bring our mission to a close within 18 months, the
president drew a distinction between his approach to the war and that of
the previous administration."
Well, not exactly. Obama said he would begin to deescalate in 18
months, but did not say how fast the drawdown would be. It will likely
take years.
In the year Obama has been in office, our forces in Iraq have only
dropped by 20,000 to 115,000. However, Obama plans to remove all combat
troops by August, 2010, another 65,000. Not until January 1, 2012 will
all U.S. troops will come home.
These troops cannot be re-shipped to Afghanistan, because they must now
be given two years at home for every year abroad.
Gen. McCrystal predicted a total collapse of the U.S. effort if 40,000
troops were not added to the 68,000 already there. On the other hand,
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry warned that any
escalation could spark an even greater insurgency, and increase Afghan
President Karzai's dependence on the U.S. military and prolong our
involvement.
Obama has fashioned a credible middle ground between these extremes, and
between his domestic critics on the left and right. However, the
success of his entire strategy depends on whether the 18 months of time
he is buying is enough to create a credible partner in the Afghan
government, army and police force to take over.
Afghanistan is a quagmire after eight years of war. Although the
Taliban was driven out in only seven weeks, mostly to Pakistan, it
returned and effectively controls much of the mountainous nation today,
including the second-largest city, Kandahar. That's where many of the
new U.S. troops are headed.
The prospects do not look promising. Karzai is corrupt, as became clear
with his blatant ballot box stuffing of his re-election. His brother
openly deals in opium. A high percentage of the army and police is
illiterate, which makes training them very difficult. After eight years,
there are only 90,000 Afghan military and 40,000 police. Few can use any
weapons but rifles. Many are addicted to narcotics.
Obama hopes that by setting a deadline to begin withdrawing our troops
that "it will become clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility
for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an
endless war in Afghanistan."
It is a huge gamble, a massive roll of the dice. The president knows
it, and knows that his re-election may well depend on how successful he
is turning a ragtag militia into an army that can defeat the Taliban.
And in only 18 months.
President Obama correctly stated that America "was founded in resistance
to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim
another nation's resources or target other peoples because of thei faith
or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for…is a better
future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their
lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can
live in freedom and access opportunity."
Those words sparked one of the few bursts of applause from the West
Point cadets whose lives will soon be on the line in pursuit of that
noble dream.
We can only pray he - and they - will be successful.
|
|
Since 1981...
2000+ Columns |
|
CURRENT ARTICLE |
|
Febrary 9,
2022: Column 2113: My Farewell Column: Happy Valentine's Week |
|
Recent Columns |
|
Writing Columns About
Marriage |
|
Will Abortion Be Made Illegal? |
|
Restore Voting Rights to Ex-Felons |
|
Progress in Black-White Relations |
|
Marriage Is
Disappearing |
|
Catholic Priest Celibacy Should Be Optional |
|
Blacks Must Consider Marriage |
|
The Need to End Catholic Priest Celibacy |
|
More Lessons For Life |
|
Lessons For Life |
|
Rebuilding Marriage in America |
|
How To Reduce Drunk Driving Deaths |
|
The Value of Couples Praying Together |
|
A Case for Pro-Life
|
|
End
The Death Penalty? |
|
Christian Choices Matter |
|
The Biblical Sexual Standard |
|
The Addictive Nature of Pornography |
|
Protecting Girls from Suicide |
|
The Worst Valentine:
Cohabitation |
|
Pornography: A Public Health Hazard |
|
Sextortion Kills Teens |
|
Cohabitation: A Risky Business |
|
Recent Searches |
|
gun control,
euthanasia,
cohabitation,
sexting,
sextortion,
alcoholism,
prayer,
guns,
same sex marriage,
abortion,
depression,
islam,
divorce,
polygamy,
religious liberty,
health care,
pornography,
teen sex,
abortion and infanticide,
Roe+v+Wade,
supreme court,
marriage,
movies,
violence,
celibacy,
living+together,
cohabitation,
ethics+and+religion,
pornography,
adultery,
divorce,
saving+marriages |
|