While doing some research on the Afghanistan war for another publication, I soon discovered that there is no shortage of opinions—many of them “expert” opinions—on how to conduct and conclude that war.
It made me realize how excruciatingly difficult it must be for the president—faced with an overabundance of advisers and advice—to divine the right policy and strategy to bring that war to a satisfactory conclusion and, inextricably tied to that, to make what will probably be the most critical decision of his young presidency—whether to commit additional American troops to that war.
Not only does the president “benefit” from a deluge of advice from his cabinet, his national security advisers, Congress, the military, and dozens of other interest groups and think tanks, but he also has to deal with an even greater amount and diversity of advice and opinions from the experts and so-called experts; from the media and its editors, columnists and pundits; and even from the wannabe experts (yours truly included) from the blogosphere—although I doubt that the latter category of advice ever makes it to the screens of the White House laptops.
On Wednesday, the president chaired a three-hour meeting with, as the New York Times describes, “the vice president and an array of cabinet secretaries, intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers,” all gathered in a windowless basement room of the White House “to chart a new course in Afghanistan.” The Times says, “The one thing everyone could agree on: None of the choices is easy.”
Given the broad spectrum of “choices” facing the president on such a critical issue, that’s probably quite an understatement.
The Times is referring to the choices offered by la crème de la crème on this national security issue. But how about advice generously offered by other “experts” and pundits?
I did a rough count of articles, editorials and opinion pieces on Afghanistan published in major publications just during the past 30 days, and I counted over 200. I did not bother to count the pieces in the numerous blogs, obviously a much larger number.
The advice the president is getting from respected journalists and opinion writers ranges from “How to Win in Afghanistan” to “How to Lose in Afghanistan,” and everything in between.
Perhaps a sign of optimism and confidence, there are several articles on how to win in Afghanistan, one of the most recent ones is written by Max Boot in the Wall Street Journal titled, you guessed it, “How to Win in Afghanistan.”
On the other hand, there is only one on “How to Lose in Afghanistan,” by the respected Anthony Cordesman, in the Washington Post. Thankfully, Cordesman’s article is constructive and realistic in tone, but warns how “any form of even limited victory will take years of further effort,” and how we can “easily lose the war” if “certain strong elements” in the White House, State Department and other agencies succeed.
As I said, there are plenty of suggestions, warnings and admonitions on the Afghanistan war.
Here are some examples, just on the issue of whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.
The titles, or the headlines, oftentimes say it all.
Let’s start straight from the top and with the most recent and probably the most important view.
Yesterday on Cnn.com: “Gates favors bolstering troops in Afghanistan, sources say.” According to this report, Obama’s top defense “adviser” is leaning toward the view that a significant number of additional combat forces will be needed for the war in Afghanistan.
And we keep reading and hearing that “McChrystal [is] to request more Afghan troops,” as reported by the Washington Times on the long-anticipated request by the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
We read the warning in the Washington Post, “[McChrystal:] More Forces Or ‘Mission Failure,’” by Bob Woodward. According to Woodward, McChrystal “needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure.’”
In the Los Angeles Times, the story, “NATO chief says more troops needed in Afghanistan.”
“McCain: More Troops Needed In Afghanistan,” says the Washington Times, with McCain insisting that the longer it takes to send them, “the more Americans will be put at risk.”
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Lindsey Graham, Joseph Lieberman and John McCain write, “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan,” and claim that our team “must also have the resources it needs to succeed—including a significant increase in U.S. forces.”
In the London Times, David Miliband, Britain’s Foreign Minister urges Barack Obama, “Back Your General And Send More Troops.”
Also from Britain, according to Bloomberg news, “Afghanistan Troop Increase Gets Support From U.K. Army Chief,” General David Richards.
Karl Rove of Iraq-war fame, after heaping praise on Bush’s “success” in that war and after thoroughly trashing Obama’s performance thus far, warns in the Wall Street Journal: “Obama Can’t Outsource Afghanistan,” and concludes: “ Refusing to provide all the troops and strategic support that his commanders are requesting will be to concede defeat. We’ll soon know whether Mr. Obama has the judgment and the courage to win this war.”
Max Boot says in the Los Angeles Times, “We Can’t Downsize To Success In Afghanistan,” and adds: “The president appears to be dragging his feet on more troops for the struggle, but that’s what an effective counterinsurgency strategy requires.”
How about the Afghans? Here is a snapshot at the top. According to Bloomberg News, “Afghan Envoy Calls For More Troops As U.S. Prepares Options.”
Clearly against sending more troops to Afghanistan, Conservative George Will writes in Newsweek, “Is It 1966 in Washington?”and calls for a “resolute and courageous liquidation” of an untenable position in Afghanistan.
Writing in the New York Post, Ralph Peters says, “It’s Not ‘Retreat’” to “maintain a compact, ferocious force on the ground that continues to kill our enemies,” and says that it is a “murderous lie” when we’re told, “’We can’t retreat’ — we have to surge still more troops. Otherwise, our enemies will win.”
“Obama Faces Doubt Among [Leading] Democrats on Afghanistan,” and on another increase in American troops in Afghanistan, as can be seen and heard on this PBS video.
Writing in the Financial Times, Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman and Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon want to “Tie Troops To Progress On Afghanistan’s Corruption,” and they outline such a plan.
Others are also doubtful.
In the Miami Herald’s “Clear Mission In Afghanistan Eludes Obama,” the writers say that many military, including boots on the ground in Afghanistan, Pentagon officials and military observers are not sure whether sending tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan will guarantee success.
In the New York Times’ ”Fending Off Failure in Afghanistan,” we find a variety of opinions on this issue.
In “Crux Of Afghan Debate: Will More Troops Curb Terror?” Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane of the New York Times, while perhaps not answering the question directly, provide one of the most reasoned, even-handed and objective analyses of all the factors and issues involved.
How many troops will be needed to achieve victory in Afghanistan?
At the Huffington Post we read: “Classified McChrystal Report: 500,000 Troops Will Be Required Over Five Years in Afghanistan.”
According to the above article, that “bombshell was dropped by NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Wednesday.
Of course, most other estimates, and guesses, are more modest than this one.
Talking about numbers, Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post tells us that it is “More Than a Numbers Game in Afghanistan”: “What Obama needs to do is downsize the mission. Our only goals should be to satisfy ourselves that Afghanistan will not again be a terrorist haven and to leave as quickly as possible. We need to use not just force but also diplomacy — which means, yes, talking to the Taliban. Some will say this shows weakness, but the ultimate sign of weakness is failure. If we send in more troops, I fear that’s where we’re headed.”
For some interesting “calculations” on how many troops it will take to secure Afghanistan, please read Robert Mackey’s article titled, what else, “How Many Troops to Secure Afghanistan?”
Finally, the most important opinion of them all: How do Americans feel about sending more troops to Afghanistan?
A September 23-24 Rasmussen Reports Poll:
Should the United States send more troops to fight the war in Afghanistan?
37% Yes
40% No
23% Not sure
A 23-24 September USA Today/Gallup Poll:
How Americans feel about sending more troops to Afghanistan
Favor sending more troops 41%
Keep same number 7%
Begin to withdraw 41%
A September 25, Gallup Poll:
“50% say they oppose sending more troops to the war torn country, while 41% say they’d support such a decision.”
