The war in Afghanistan has been plagued by two huge problems: a lack of force and a lack of an achievable goal. The slow bleed of troops that have been sent to the real home to the “war on terror”, and the stated desire to “defeat the terrorists” is just a wee bit unlikely to happen. Obama has thus been saddled with a monumental task, and Leslie Gelb of the Daily Beast has the insider scoop.
The strategy to govern the employment of these forces, Mr. Obama is expected to say, will be much like the counterinsurgency approach he originally approved back in March—the approach McChrystal reaffirmed in his recent “secret” leaked report. That means clearing areas and holding them with military force, followed by civilian and economic programs. He will also underline the anti-terrorist component of this strategy—namely the focus on attacking al Qaeda itself, a point stressed relentlessly by Vice President Joe Biden during the nearly two-month policy review.
But there are two additional elements to the strategy. U.S. forces will expedite the long-neglected training of Afghan military and police forces. And the new 30,000-plus surge of U.S. troops will be used to beat up on the Taliban enough to make it easier for the Afghans themselves to manage down the road.
Bush’s foreign policy vis a vis war has always been described as “cowboy”, although maybe “Hollywood” would be more accurate. In the Bush mindset, American soldiers railroad all the bad guys in dramatic Saving Private Ryan style sequences that end with heroic, dirtied faces holding a fallen comrade and screaming “damn you bastards!!” while shooting the last few villains who widowed his best friend’s wife. The main point is “strength” and “courage”. Hence the strategies he employed tended to be “let’s shoot some troops at ‘em!”
Now on the surface you might say “Well Hanlon, that sounds an awful lot like this.” Close, but not quite. The Obama troop increase is in order to facilitate a more civilian-supported strategy. It’s using American troops to clear a path for the Afghan people to take over, rather than simply trying to kill more of a largely ethereal enemy. Let’s hope it works, too, because we’re actually getting to a point where kids who were born after the war started are in school reading about it.
I sincerely hope this works for President Obama. This approach – which is a little like Iraq, is it not? – is what is needed, not the "I'm here to save you!" efforts of the Bush dictatorship. We all know, now, that Bush had no interest in saving anyone but his own ideas. Obama, at least, looks like he wants to make the effort. If he tries, and fails, I hope people remember he at least *tried*, whereas Bush failed, and failed, and failed again.
I understand his wanting to weigh the options of more troops before committing to Afganistan and I honestly don't blame him. I'm glad he did, mind you, but being Commander in Chief doesn't mean throwing more troops at a problem in hopes of solving it. He has to decide if it was, in the end, worth it to begin with, something Bush didn't seem to care about. Obama seems to actually give a crap about the lives of the soldier's he's going to be sending there; I don't think Bush ever cared at all.