Time to Get Out of Afghanistan By George F. Will Tuesday, September 1, 2009 U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable. So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters. Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.
U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.
So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.
I believe there are in fact good reasons why America is in Afghanistan: the future of a stable, nuclearized Pakistan, as well as of Central Asia, depends upon it. It is also important for containing Iran. Defeat would constitute a moral victory for Islamic terrorists worldwide, and would demoralize our own armed forces. Obama needs to make these points and more. To build the semblance of a stable Afghanistan, he needs to be all in on the issue, and to publicly communicate as much. He can't finesse Afghanistan: doing so would mean returning war policy to the same degree of ambivalence it held under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when we were not fully committed to the fight in either Iraq or Afghanistan, even as our troops were being killed daily. Returning to the Rumsfeld era would be a supreme irony for Obama, yet that could be the direction we are headed. The path before the President is hard. To make his way, he will need to truly commit himself - even if that means taking a cue from his predecessor.
I believe there are in fact good reasons why America is in Afghanistan: the future of a stable, nuclearized Pakistan, as well as of Central Asia, depends upon it. It is also important for containing Iran. Defeat would constitute a moral victory for Islamic terrorists worldwide, and would demoralize our own armed forces. Obama needs to make these points and more. To build the semblance of a stable Afghanistan, he needs to be all in on the issue, and to publicly communicate as much. He can't finesse Afghanistan: doing so would mean returning war policy to the same degree of ambivalence it held under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when we were not fully committed to the fight in either Iraq or Afghanistan, even as our troops were being killed daily. Returning to the Rumsfeld era would be a supreme irony for Obama, yet that could be the direction we are headed.
The path before the President is hard. To make his way, he will need to truly commit himself - even if that means taking a cue from his predecessor.
But Kaplan is right. Withdrawal sends all the wrong messages unless the can find a new way to say "Peace with honour". keep to the Fen Causeway
The U.S. isn't that far away. I think each day the U.S. stays in Afghanistan, is another day closer.
What I suspect Will really is doing with his column is the opposite of what it seems. I think he attempting to shift the Overton window and support sending more troops.
Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.
No longer "inconceivable" since Will has floated the trial balloon. Combine this with two articles in today's newspapers.
NY Times: Groundwork Is Laid for New Troops in Afghanistan
McClatchy: Pentagon worried about Obama's commitment to Afghanistan<
Throw in Cheney from this weekend:
The Hill: Cheney calls the Dems soft on defense
And what you have is Republican 101 trying to Johnsonize Obama's commitment to endless war, setting the stage for the right's next Nixon.
America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan...
In particular, reducing the use of airstrikes is precisely the opposite of Obama and his generals stated goals in Afghanistan.
Will is calling for more bombs, more Afghan civilian casualties, and undoubtedly more chaos in the region... just in time for 2012 elections when the next Nixon can offer a secret plan to end the war.
