Op-Ed: Weighing Afghanistan War Strategy

Many await President Obama's decision on Afghanistan. Impatience is growing, but the world should consider what's at stake.

President Barack Obama and his administration are facing criticism for not making a quick decision on Afghanistan. General McChrystal, in charge of operations there, would like 40,000 troops. Anti-war advocates wants the U.S. to pull out all together. The Taliban would welcome more troops; that gives more infidels to kill. There doesn’t appear to be an immediate right or wrong decision. But when you look at some of the facts, one could see why the President should take all the time needed before making one. As citizens with no access to classified information, we can only count on what we see from the outside looking in. Pulling all the U.S. troops could let the Taliban flourish once again, promote terrorist mentality and lead to another terrorist attack not just in America but all over the world. Although it is highly unlikely that the Taliban would send 500,000 soldiers to invade the U.S., it isn’t inconceivable for them to fund more suicide bombings or gain control of Pakistani nuclear weapons. However, adding more troops could unnecessarily put more U.S. lives at risk. It appears that current U.S. strategy is to stop whatever Taliban movement they can see. 40,000 more troops puts 40,000 more boots on the ground to do so. But if the best way to stop the Taliban is through Pakistan, how would more troops in Afghanistan complete that mission? Even now, not every person shooting at U.S. soldier is even part of the Taliban. The U.S. may be fighting with a winning strategy inside a losing battleground. Is the U.S. ready to lose one, two or three thousand more with no clear mission or way to win it? That’s what ended up happening in Iraq. Although the last eight years have provided Iraq with a path to democracy, the initial reason the U.S. was there turned out to be a big rumor. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found, despite then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N. This meant that Saddam Hussein had not reached a level to where he could realize the demise of the United States. Ironically, his megalomania actually kept other anti-U.S. terrorists from fighting our troops in Iraq. When he was removed, the flood gates opened, the civil wars became more deadly, and U.S. soldiers were put at risk. So far, the immediate losses are more than 3,000. This doesn’t include the number of returning soldiers suffering from PTSD and the family members who live with them. Many are scheduled to be home by 2010. And then there’s the unknown. Much of what goes on behind enemy lines is kept out of the U.S. public’s eyes. We can only rely on general statements from the Administration and the media’s military consultants to give their opinions. Campaign promises of ending wars a certain way cannot fully be trusted because only the acting President and key staff members are fully briefed (to their knowledge) on the whole story. It appears that Obama’s earlier statement of having a new strategy was premature. Then again, could anything have taken place behind the scenes that quickly demolished it? For one to criticize the Administration for taking its time to develop the right strategy, one must realize what has already been lost and what is at risk. If a soldier dies in Afghanistan, it should be to protect the United States.