Frank here.Tomorrow night President Obama will announce how many more American troops he'll commit to Afghanistan, and the number's expected to be in the 30-35 K range, somewhere less than the 40,000 requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head commander in Afghanistan.
Equally or more important, Obama will outline what the troops are going to Afghanistan for. It's not simply a matter of adding troops or subtracting them, but directing them toward achieving tasks in line with the ultimate goal of protecting the population.
But if you protect the population from insurgents, but fail to offer any viable alternative to turning to tribal militias for protection, then what good is it? How can the U.S. create the conditions for Afghanistan's government to work in the face of hard evidence of its inveterate corruption?
Last Friday KNS ran a story on Rep. John J. Duncan Jr.'s opposition to the war. Duncan believes nation building, which is what counter-insurgency doctrine essentially requires, is too costly and outside the U.S. military's purview, and so the U.S. should thus pull its remaining troops out.
He's likely to find many strange bedfellows agreeing: This viewpoint is gaining ground as more people worry about domestic issues-the economy, the long-term fiscal health of the federal government, the climate, health care-and turn away from a focus abroad.
Obama has no easy task at hand-he has to at once convince this country and Karzai's government in Afghanistan that we will not continue expending lives and dollars forever, while convincing insurgents, militias and the Afghan people that we're firmly committed to protecting the population and not going anywhere anytime soon.
This strategy takes money and time-two things in increasingly short supply for Obama.
Equally or more important, Obama will outline what the troops are going to Afghanistan for. It's not simply a matter of adding troops or subtracting them, but directing them toward achieving tasks in line with the ultimate goal of protecting the population.
But if you protect the population from insurgents, but fail to offer any viable alternative to turning to tribal militias for protection, then what good is it? How can the U.S. create the conditions for Afghanistan's government to work in the face of hard evidence of its inveterate corruption?
Last Friday KNS ran a story on Rep. John J. Duncan Jr.'s opposition to the war. Duncan believes nation building, which is what counter-insurgency doctrine essentially requires, is too costly and outside the U.S. military's purview, and so the U.S. should thus pull its remaining troops out.
He's likely to find many strange bedfellows agreeing: This viewpoint is gaining ground as more people worry about domestic issues-the economy, the long-term fiscal health of the federal government, the climate, health care-and turn away from a focus abroad.
Obama has no easy task at hand-he has to at once convince this country and Karzai's government in Afghanistan that we will not continue expending lives and dollars forever, while convincing insurgents, militias and the Afghan people that we're firmly committed to protecting the population and not going anywhere anytime soon.
This strategy takes money and time-two things in increasingly short supply for Obama.
Comments » 0
Be the first to post a comment!
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.