What Would Barack Do?

The Big Speech. West Point. December 1, 2009. President Obama has a little problem: his war in Afghanistan is going anything but well. Eight long years! NATO forces, mostly comprised of U.S. soldiers, are battling fiercely against foes the locals truly hate – al Qaeda and the Taliban – it’s just that they actually like us Westerners a whole lot less… and we are keeping a wildly corrupt Afghan administration in office that even the United Nations elections observers acknowledge was reelected with a vote where as many as one third of the ballots could have been fraudulent.

We keep lobbing missiles, shells and drone-strikes into villages with horrific civilian casualties, almost unavoidable in such conflicts, and the bad guys high-tail it into safe havens in bordering Pakistan – literally autonomous tribal districts that do not report to Pakistani authorities – until the “heat” subsides and our forces turn to fight another battle elsewhere or… they assume… eventually withdraw. Obama’s generals tell him that without 35-40,000 additional troops all is lost (initially, they asked for a lot more, but they knew they would have to scale back), so if the President were to opt for any other path than to comply with his military’s request, any subsequent failure would result in a “I told you so” sequence of blame piled deep upon his head… a big risk with teetering public support and a Congressional election next year and a Presidential election in 2012.

But Barack also knows that the United States is a growing international credit risk, a debtor nation with lots of wary creditors increasingly hesitant to buy more deficit-induced bonds… and a country with lots of hard-hit taxpayers wondering when the red ink will finally stop. He knows we really cannot afford to stay in this war much longer, and the American people have grown tired of this war. A recent Gallop poll pits 55% of Americans opposing the war against 35% who favor our pressing forward.

I heard the President say “costs” a lot, so I guess he must understand that moths are beginning to fly out of our pockets. He also knows that unless we remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, as soon as our troops depart, the old factions will almost certainly return, and if war lords and tribalism do not hack up the country, perhaps a dreaded Taliban dictatorship will smother whatever remains. It’s not really a war we clearly can win. We had a chance a long time ago, as we pledged, to buy local hearts and minds with the construction of schools, hospitals, electrical power generating stations, roads… well, you get it… but we had better places to spend our money in Iraq. We ignored our promises, so the Afghan people really don’t even trust us anymore.

So how do you extract your troops without subjecting yourself to the “I told you so” attacks from the GOP that would likely come, inconveniently, during an election? What do you do to avoid losing a war you really have almost no chance to win? Methinks Barack has come up with the path! First, you tell your generals that they can have the increased forces they say they need (like 30,000 U.S. soldiers he actually announced, the balance from other NATO nations), but les générales have to deliver tangible results by certain deadlines, which “goals” you finesse them into giving you in exchange for the troop commitments. Just for good measure, you throw in some benchmarks for the corrupt Afghani government everyone hates, also a few necessary timelines on them to justify the continued U.S. presence. But you pretty much know the corrupt government really can’t change its spots (they’ll screw up somewhere), and if the war is truly unwinnable, your generals aren’t going to be able to deliver their results either.

Then, you gotta tell your country something like “We must deny al-Qaida a safe haven… We must reverse the Taliban's momentum. ... And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government… [O]ur security is at stake.” Oh, you did. Good work, Mr. President. I mean, you can’t tell the voters I don’t think this is gonna work, but I gotta look like I’m trying! It’s has to be necessary (“national security” has always been a reliable rationale) – but within limits. Hint: Just don’t make it so essential that we really can’t leave.

Assuming that strategy “works” (i.e., that the Afghan government and the U.S. generals don’t meet their deadlines), you announce a clear and sustained troop withdrawal (getting your NATO allies – equally anxious to leave – on the same page) on the dates that the benchmarks are not met (or accelerate bringing the troops home after your mid-2011 “start to withdraw date”… conveniently a year before the next Presidential election), the bulk of which extraction might just take place after the 2012 Presidential election, just in case Afghanistan collapses faster than we suspect. And what happens in the exceptionally remote circumstance that in fact the benchmarks are met? Hey, you take credit for a great decision!

“Okay” speech Tuesday night, Mr. President (even if John McCain didn’t like it – telling your enemy when you’re leaving and all, but I think they already know, and anyway, you didn’t tell them when we really would all be gone), but don’t get caught up when the benchmarks aren’t timely and you are hit by the cries of: “Don’t pull out yet; we’re almost there. We just need a bit more time.” We called that the “Vietnam War.”

I particularly liked the part of your speech about the Afghan government that went “This effort must be based on performance… The days of providing a blank check are over.” And “After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,” … we’ll put a pin in that one, Mr. President, and be sure to follow-up when the time is right. Eighteen months, eh? How long after July, 2011 will all our troops be home, again? A week?

I’m Peter Dekom, and I approve this message.