Bring the Troops Home
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 13, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209823.htmlThe most dreadful burden of the presidency -- the power
to send men and women to die for their country -- seems
to weigh heavily on Barack Obama these days. He went to
Dover Air Force Base to salute the coffins of fallen
troops. He gave a moving speech at the memorial service
for victims of last week's killings at Fort Hood. On
Veterans Day, after the traditional wreath-laying at
Arlington National Cemetery, he took an unscheduled
walk among the rows of marble headstones in Section 60,
where the dead from our two ongoing wars are buried.
As he decides whether to escalate the war in
Afghanistan, Obama should keep these images in mind.
Geopolitical calculation has human consequences.
Sending more troops will mean more coffins arriving at
Dover, more funerals at Arlington, more stress and
hardship for military families. It would be wrong to
demand such sacrifice in the absence of military goals
that are clear, achievable and worthwhile.
And what goals in Afghanistan remotely satisfy those
criteria?
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the U.S.
ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, recently sent two
classified cables to officials in Washington expressing
what the newspaper described as "deep concerns" about
sending more troops now.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, chosen by Obama to lead U.S.
forces in Afghanistan, has asked for perhaps 40,000
additional troops to carry out a counterinsurgency
campaign. Armchair Napoleons in Washington, comfortably
ensconced in their book-lined offices, insist that
Obama must "listen to the generals." But Eikenberry was
a four-star general until Obama named him ambassador
earlier this year. He commanded U.S. troops in
Afghanistan in 2006-07. He needs to be heard as well.
In what were described as sharply worded cables,
Eikenberry reportedly expressed serious doubts about
the willingness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai to
tackle the corruption and mismanagement that have made
his government so unpopular and ineffectual -- and that
have allowed the Taliban to effectively regain control
of much of the country.
Karzai, you will recall, committed what observers
described as widespread, blatant election fraud in
"winning" a new term in office. In many parts of
Afghanistan, the Karzai government is seen as so weak
and corrupt that the Taliban has been able to move in
as a lesser-of-two-evils alternative.
It is axiomatic that a successful counterinsurgency
program requires a partnership with a reliable,
legitimate government. If the Karzai regime is not such
a partner, the goal that McChrystal would be pursuing
with those extra 40,000 troops will not be achievable.
Obama is also reportedly considering scenarios in which
he would send roughly 30,000 extra troops, somehow
persuading our unwilling NATO allies to make up the
difference, or send about 20,000 troops and modify the
McChrystal plan, opting instead for a "hybrid" strategy
that's part counterinsurgency, part counterterrorism.
I'm skeptical that either of these options sets goals
that are achievable, and I'm certain that neither sets
goals that are clear.
Following his visits to Dover, Fort Hood and Arlington
Cemetery, Obama should focus the attention of the White
House and the Pentagon on a question that too often is
overlooked: What troops?
Our all-volunteer armed forces have been at war for
eight years with no end in sight, serving tours of duty
of up to 15 months in the war zones of Iraq and
Afghanistan. Many units have been called to serve
multiple tours. By contrast, most Vietnam War soldiers
served a single one-year tour.
Fighting two big simultaneous wars with our armed
forces stretched so thin has put enormous emotional,
psychological and economic stress on military families.
The suicide rate in the armed forces has climbed
steadily, as has the incidence of stress disorders
among veterans. The Pentagon is adept at shuttling its
people around and has worked out how to provide the
40,000 troops McChrystal wants. But any new deployment
would come at a heavy cost -- a human cost -- far
beyond the billions of dollars required to train,
equip, transport and maintain the units being sent.
There are reports that Obama has refused to sign off on
any plan until his advisers tell him how they propose
to end the expanded war they advocate. But this sounds
like just another way of saying: Tell me how we're
going to fix the mistake we're about to make.
As long as our goals in Afghanistan remain as elusive
as they are now, Obama shouldn't be sending troops. He
should be bringing them out.
_____________________________________________
Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.
Submit via email: moderator@...
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Send Email
