Afghanistan throws up tough choices for Obama

[mawilson 2,133]

At a recent meeting with senior military staff, James Jones, Barack Obama’s national security adviser,

warned that any request for more US troops in Afghanistan would prompt a presidential "#######"

moment. #######, in the highly acronymic Pentagon culture, literally means "whisky tango foxtrot".

But in practice it means: "What the f***?"

Having already "surged" an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan bringing US forces up to a peak

of 68,000, Mr Obama could be forgiven for responding with expletives. At a time when the US

president is under acute pressure to rein in a huge US fiscal deficit and when the Pentagon is severely

overstretched, another hefty troop request would be hard to satisfy.

Yet it would be even harder to turn down. Having sacked David McKiernan, the previous military

commander in Afghanistan, and replaced him with David McChrystal, Mr Obama is beholden to

the thinking on the ground. Gen McChrystal, an expert in the troop-intensive ways of fighting

counter-insurgencies, is readying a much-awaited assessment report, which is expected to include

a request for at least another 10,000 troops. In fact, there are credible rumours that Gen McChrystal

could even be planning to ask for as many as 20,000 to 30,000 more. Any such request would

be likely to get the backing of David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, which oversees

Afghanistan, and author of the counter-insurgency troop surge in Iraq.

It would also meet with the approval of most experts, who point out that the ratio of troops to

population in Afghanistan is too low to guarantee success. The history of counter-insurgencies

also suggests it takes 12 to 14 years to succeed. Given the shifting nature of the Bush

administration’s efforts in Afghanistan, 2009 should be dated as year one of the counter-insurgency,

rather than year eight.

All of which will put Mr Obama in a quandary. As the US troop presence grows, so too does the

cost of America's efforts in Afghanistan. Last month a record 76 coalition troops were killed in

Afghanistan – more than in 2002, 2003 or 2004 and roughly half the level of the intervening years.

As US troops fan out into the smaller towns in the new "clear, hold and build" strategy, the fatality

rate is likely to rise. At some point, the monthly body bag count is likely to exceed 100 – which could

spark a serious backlash in the US.

How will Mr Obama respond? There are no easy exit strategies from the policy Mr Obama has

embraced. From a political point of view, Mr Obama is following up on his campaign critique of the

Bush administration, which he said diverted resources from the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan

against al-Qaeda and its allies to a "war of choice" in Iraq, which is now winding down.

Any attempt to leave before there is a stable government in Afghanistan that has the ability to

contain the Taliban would be depicted as a "cut and run" by the Republican opposition. However,

sticking the course and watching the body bags come in will fuel the liberal left's growing

disenchantment with the president.

Some are even talking about "quagmires" and drawing parallels between Mr Obama and Lyndon

Baines Johnson, whose desperate attempts to accelerate victory in Vietnam in the 1960s were

dictated by the political timetable. LBJ's failure in Vietnam also brought the "Great Society" of

ambitious domestic reforms juddering to a halt.

Such comparisons are overblown. But, in politics, perception trumps reality. Nor does politics

reward strategic patience – precisely the quality Mr Obama will need to yield fruit in Afghanistan.

Next week, the White House will do its best to hail the results of the presidential election, which

is likely to result in the re-election of the ineffectual Hamid Karzai. After that, thousands more

coalition troops, including several hundred British, are likely to drift home.

As the US becomes an ever more dominant component of the International Security Assistance

Force, it is worth recalling another piece of Pentagon acronymitis. ISAF, according to US military

humour, stands for "I saw America fight", or even "I suck at fighting". Mr Obama already owns this

war. As time goes on it will get lonelier.

link