Obama's Afghan Options--Bad and Worse

by 158 | October 14, 2009 at 09:54 am

123 views | 10 Recommendations | 12 comments

On one side of the White House debate are proposals to send at least 40,000 additional troops and trainers as part of a beefed-up counterinsurgency strategy advocated by the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.

This would help to

improve security in

Afghanistan is the short

term but would not be

enough to win the war and

destroy the Taliban.

On the other side are plans to hold steady on troop levels in Afghanistan and concentrate on attacking al Qaeda targets along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and in Pakistan itself with the greater use of drones and special forces, a proposal backed by Vice President Joe Biden.

This plan would very

likely lead to disaster,

to a Taliban take over

of the entire country

and to a bigger threat to

Pakistan.

Some analysts and commentators have argued that U.S. forces should withdraw from Afghanistan and stop devoting large amounts of resources to nation-building and fighting Taliban militants

This would mean the terrorists

would take over all of the

country but at least it is a

logical plan if you just want

to give up and go home and

with it no more US troops

would die there.

Obama could decide to add around 10,000 to 15,000 troops to provide more combat power and increase the training of Afghan forces.

This could be Obama's

worst option. It would

be sending enough men

to avoid defeat but not

enough to win so it

would mean more years

of bloodshed.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Hugh Askew

at 10:07 on October 14th, 2009

Hate to pun in a situation like this, but president truly is caught between Iraq and a hard place (Afgahnistan).

Right or wrong, it is now his decision.

158

at 10:10 on October 14th, 2009

Very true and if he does increase troops it will then be his war, to win or lose.

a211423

at 10:51 on October 14th, 2009

From reports I have read 40,000 additional is no where near enough to "win." Total troop commitment would have to look more like 600,000 total. : (

I would not want to be in the president's position right now, as it seems no matter what the choice is outcomes risk more death and destruction, and the quality of life for the Afghan people might continue to decrease. The winners in this war should ultimately be the people, and I hope the decisions are framed with those intentions.

158

at 11:01 on October 14th, 2009

A very good comment.

To win quickly would require at least 1/2 million men.

If Obama sends more troops the left wing of the democrats would abandon him en masse.

\That would leave him in an alliance with republicans, not a good place to run for reelection in 2012.

a211423

at 11:55 on October 14th, 2009

I hope this administration makes a decision based on what is good for this country, Afghanistan, and the world, not whether he will be elected. At some point, decisions have to be apolitical and made because it is the right thing to do. Call me an idealist, but in my heart I believe they will do this.

158

at 12:22 on October 14th, 2009

I hope you are right.

As I said there are no good answers.

If the Afghan war is still a no win no lose war by 2012 Obama will be in deep trouble whatever he does.

nanute

at 12:45 on October 14th, 2009

Can we get a clear definition of winning and victory please?

158

at 13:53 on October 14th, 2009

A victory is to drive the enemy from the battlefield.

To win a war is to control the territory when the war is over.

a211423

at 14:27 on October 14th, 2009

While I believe the war in Afghanistan can be a defining moment in the presidency, lets not forget the economy. A lot depends on job creation and whether Americans feel confident in the decisions that have been made and deem this to be enough for re-election.

Whether we stay or leave in Afghanistan, it will be controversial no matter what is decided and can adversely effect elections in 2012, which is why I believe doing whats best for the American people and the future of the Afghans should be a top priority, not about future elections.