Senior Airman Shaun Thomas in Goldsboro, N.C., spends a few moments alone shortly before deploying to Afghanistan, in this Aug. 30 photo.
(Greg Sousa/ News-Argus/ AP)Photos (1 of 1)
Bad timing for Obama on any troop buildup in Afghanistan
Drumbeat of opposition grows louder as antiwar movement looks to ramp up in the fall – and as some in Congress start talking of planning for the US exit.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer/ September 1, 2009 edition
Washington
The commanding American general in Afghanistan is expected to follow up soon on his review of the war there by asking for additional troops and other resources – a request that could hardly come at a worse time for President Obama.
Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal is likely to seek from two to four additional brigades – or as many as 20,000 more US soldiers beyond the 65,000 already in Afghanistan – as part of a “revised strategy” to better protect the Afghan population and accelerate the training of Afghan security forces, sources at the Pentagon and elsewhere say.
But such a request will come amid signs of faltering domestic support for the Afghanistan effort and as Mr. Obama, facing a worrisome overall erosion of public confidence, hopes to focus attention on his drive for healthcare reform.
Growing doubts about the US commitment in Afghanistan and noisy opposition to the war may be the last things the White House needs, but increasingly that looks to be what the administration is going to get.
• The antiwar movement, deflated by a quieter Iraq and the programmed withdrawal of US forces there, plans to ramp up public opposition to the Afghanistan war this fall.
•Frustration with the course of the war is bubbling in Congress, with Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin – notably the first senator to call four years ago for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq – announcing he favors setting a “flexible timetable” for drawing down US forces in Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan never faced the degree of public opposition that the war in Iraq did, in part because of the direct link between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Afghanistan.
In addition, the level of war opposition in the US often correlates with casualties and violence levels, some defense analysts note, but Iraq war casualties – both for US troops and Iraqi civilians – always eclipsed those in Afghanistan. With more troops being sent to Afghanistan and with the relegation of US troops in Iraq to large bases, however, that picture has flipped. Last month, US casualties in Afghanistan reached the highest level of the war there.
The higher-profile casualties and a worry that US troops in Afghanistan are being asked to undertake an unclear or impossible task are feeding the nascent opposition to the war, some war analysts say.
“We’re moving beyond the clear objective of shutting down Al Qaeda, but the goal of stabilizing Afghanistan and liberalizing the central government is a much broader policy that Americans are saying they never signed up for,” says Malou Innocent, an Afghanistan-Pakistan expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian Washington think tank.
This “mission creep,” as she calls it, has led Ms. Malou, in a recent report she co-authored on US Afghanistan policy, to advocate a withdrawal of most US troops over the next 12 to 18 months. Enough troops could be left in Afghanistan, she says, to fulfill the limited objective of training Afghan security forces, while an “intelligence-based” fight against Al Qaeda, more akin to international crimefighting, could be pursued largely from offshore.
Senator Feingold, who does not specify the length of the “flexible timetable for withdrawal” he recently proposed, says his framework would allow the US to refocus on the core objective of battling Al Qaeda, without turning the US into the “foreign occupier” that has never fared well in Afghanistan.
Leaders in the US antiwar movement say an affection in their ranks for Obama has until now stifled the kind of boisterous opposition that President Bush faced. But Feingold is a liberal Democrat. At the same time, signs are growing that the “get out of Afghanistan” camp, while small, is expanding into a broader ideological band. Writing in the Washington Post Tuesday, conservative columnist George Will says the US effort in Afghanistan should be called “Operation Sisyphus” and concludes that US presence should be “substantially reduced” to a focus on battling Al Qaeda with drones, missiles, and special-forces units concentrating on the Pakistan border.
“Instead of adding troops, the administration should narrow the objectives,” says Malou. With Congress’s summer recess ending and “the focus returning to Washington,” she adds, “I think [the administration] will hear more about how that’s what Americans want.”
—-
Follow us on Twitter.
Comments
2. Michael OToole | 09.01.09
As a twelve-year veteran of the Army Intelligence service, I can tell you I am not one of the anti-war brigade. However, the war in Afghanistan is unwinable; always has been. Clearly, after the Soviet debacle (10-years and 100,000 casulties) it was/is clear to me you simply cannot win a war against or with a country who’s peples’s herat and minds you have not won over.
This war will drag on, and on and American service men and women will be sacrificed and in the end, for what?
Al-Queda exists ONLY at the pleasure of Saudia Arabia. . .Unless and until we are willing to face that, and go after them–the Saudis who fund worldwide terrorism–we are doomed to failure. . It’s like sticking ones finger into a ****. . .
So, Reagan Conservative that I am, I say immediately get our troops out. .Forget the politicing and deal with the facts–this is unwinable.
3. Tim | 09.01.09
As we use to say in the 60’s
Hey Hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today –
Same theme new message:
Hey Hey BHO how many kids did you kill today —
4. bill | 09.01.09
I have not heard any “louder” calls to leave. I’m leftist. This is where we should have stayed the whole time. In order to win, we have to improve the lifestyles of the Afghanis. Electricity, water main focus. Hunt the taliban when we get intelligence. More is better. And yes, I did spend 11 months in Al Anbar in 2006. If we had had the 550,000 troops Shinseky had recommended we could have left a long time ago. A force too small is just an irritation. If there is not enough security to hold and build in an area it’s just an irritation. We have to secure an area, stay there and build something useful to them hunt the taliban get the area stable then leave. Not be all over the place irritating everyone.
5. Asten | 09.01.09
This is stupid. Why SHOULD we leave Afghanistan? I mean we’re there to wipe out the Taliban and fix the country. And now that America has started to transfer supplies and troops to Afghanistan the stupid people want to cut and run? What type of nation will we be if we didn’t do our job and the Taliban were able to bring down Kazai’s gov’t and Al-Qaeda launch an attack on us again. We would be like slaves submiting to their violent masters. I guess idiots don’t care if they get killed then…..cowards.
6. Not A Fan of Liberal Press | 09.01.09
Question: what happened to the daily update on the number of casualties we used to see in the papers hmmmm? I guess that information was only useful to help Obama get elected.
7. kris | 09.01.09
Why should we leave Afghanistan so early? We have a commitment to fix what we started. You can’t just invade countries, then leave at a convenient time. It will result in chaos for Afghans, and they will never ever forgive us. Our reputation will be tarnished forever and strengthen anti-american propoganda that we are weak and unreliable. We need to be patient and strong. Children don’t grow up and leave their home in 9 years. Neither do nations / institutions. Be patient, persevere and the world will be a better place to live in.
8. george | 09.01.09
Michael, I appreciate your comments, but how else are we going to insure the exportation of the heroin poppies for use around the world? We need our troops there….
9. Bobarian | 09.01.09
God bless our troops, but it’s difficult to support the mission with Obamateur in charge.
10. Clement R Knorr | 09.01.09
Obama and his confounded military advisors must have little, if any, knowledge of history. After six years on the ground, what have they learned about Afghanistan that neither Alexander, Ghengis Kahn, Britian or the USSR failed to learn? The answer is nothing! Others too have “conquered” Afghanistan, none have ever “pacified” the place. Let’s cease the constant meddling in the affairs of other nations and solve our problems at home.
11. Otto | 09.01.09
I’m conflicted. On one hand Bush never followed through in Afghanistan. On the other, great powers have never faired well in that country. So, while I’m glad Barack is actually trying to defeat the people who attacked us on 9/11, I’m not sure he can win.
One thing is a certanty - George W. Bush left us with so many disasters it may take a generation to recover.
12. Hilary | 09.01.09
If we’re not even sure we can afford health insurance for Americans, we definitely shouldn’t be blowing tax-payer money on a war.
13. bryan | 09.01.09
There are some fates worse than death, and I imagine living under the Taliban is one of them. How much would you sacrifice so your daughters were free to travel where they want, to get an education, and to show their faces in the light of day? If America can’t stand up for Afghanistan, what good are we?
14. tipover | 09.02.09
So many are ready to quit because we have finally begun to concentrate on the Afghan situation and of course more exposure means more casualties. I am hearing the same cries to “Run Away!” that I heard just before Bush cranked up the surge and especially in the early stages before the results began to show such that the timid could not deny it was working. Timidity will not gain the US anything except a return in a few years to clean up the mess that will occur in our absence from the battle field. So many are too young or absent minded to remember the last time we surrendered the field (with promises of support to the “natives” quickly forgotten). I suspect that there still some Vietnamese “Boat People” who remember.
15. shanise | 09.02.09
The Afghan army is not helping themselves…how can the US help a country that sits back n wants all the work done for them. We’re losing our troops while the Afghan soldiers are gaining their’s.
16. TJ | 09.02.09
Did anyone notice that Will’s op-ed ideas have come out of the Bill Clinton play book to deal with bin Ladin and co pre 9/11. Oh, the other argument made a few years back was that we would not abandon Afghan after the Soviet adventure and Tailban take-over. Our turning a blind eye to all that produced conditions that have led to the present debacle. Oh, and can we count on Pakistan to allow us to send Special Forces through its territory? What happens after another al Qaeda attack on the country? Part of the problem all along has been a lack of intelligence gathering opportunities. You don’t get to figure out what terrorist do by watching photos from satelites. Come on people get your heads out of the sand. Lets listen to the people on the ground dealing with this…
17. Worried Mom | 09.02.09
All I know is the Government has neglected our troops with keeping them short handed and under resourced. My son is over there, God protect him and all who is over there. Someone with a brain on there shoulders needs to make a good decision on there behalf. Stop throwing our sons and daughters into **** and a death trap. Everyone needs to care, speak out, and most importantly our Government. I am tired of seeing our men die over there everyday, worried and watching and praying it is not my son and feeling horrible that someone else’s son has passed.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Kathy | 09.01.09
I can only hope that the anti war Left is actually paying attention to the casualties and realizing that this is now good old Obama’s baby. Can’t wait to see how the Left and more importantly how the media reacts to Obama’s war. should be very interesting to watch.