Obama and his critics on Afghanistan

Robert Robb,

Afghanistan is what it is. And given circumstances there, President Barack Obama's decision about an ongoing troop presence is as good as any, and better than most.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama inherited the failure of the neoconservative vision. Under a U.S. protectorate, both countries were to be transformed into functioning democracies, U.S. allies and an example to others in the region.

After $1.4 trillion spent, 6,700 U.S. troops killed, and another 50,000 wounded, that's not the way things turned out.

In Iraq, neoconservatives blame Obama. The surge had stabilized the country and Obama blew it by not negotiating an ongoing and sizeable U.S. troop presence. And now, they claim, he is making the same mistake in Afghanistan, by leaving too few troops in place and announcing a schedule for their total withdrawal.

That's a flawed rendering of what happened in Iraq. The internal politics of the country precluded reaching an agreement granting U.S. troops continued immunity from prosecution by Iraqi authorities irrespective of who was doing the negotiating on the U.S. side. And the country is now falling apart not because of a lack of U.S. military presence, but because the Shiite political leadership has failed to forge a pluralistic governing structure and ethos.

In Afghanistan, U.S. efforts at nation-building were particularly misguided. We built up a national security force the country cannot afford. And we built infrastructure the country can't run or maintain.

Unlike in Iraq, however, the internal politics in Afghanistan favors an ongoing U.S. military presence, including a willingness to grant the necessary immunity. A loya jirga, a meeting of tribal representatives, endorsed it. While current Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign an agreement, both candidates to replace him have vowed to do so.

Obama announced a willingness to keep 9,800 troops in the country, down from the current 32,000. The residual contingent would continue training Afghan security forces and conduct limited counterterrorism operations. That number would be cut in half in 2015, and be withdrawn entirely in 2016.

Too few troops to do anything worthwhile, the critics maintain. Just an announcement to our enemies of when we'll be gone, they complain.

Missing from the criticism is an articulation of a U.S. national security interest that would warrant a larger military presence with an expanded writ.

When 9/11 occurred, Afghanistan was already in the midst of a low-grade civil war. The United States, without much in the way of ground troops other than special ops, tilted the balance of power in the civil war to those opposed to the Taliban, who had given al-Qaida safe haven. The Taliban were ousted in just two months. Only 12 U.S. soldiers lost their lives in the initial effort. It only cost $21 billion.

The low-grade civil war continues, with the Taliban trying to regain power. But U.S. intelligence officials believe that there are very few foreign jihadists among them.

If an imminent security threat reappears in Afghanistan, the United States has the capacity to respond as devastatingly as necessary. Keeping 30,000 or so troops in the country to, in essence, fight in the Afghan civil war when the security threat to the U.S. is uncertain and unclear isn't in our national interest.

The criticism of a schedule for withdrawal is particularly curious. The United States is a democracy. And in a democracy, the government needs the support of the body politic for its foreign policy.

When U.S. troops are deployed, there is undoubtedly some conclusions reached as to how long it is likely to take to do the task assigned. Why shouldn't that expectation be shared with the American people? Keeping nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan for 10 years would be a far different proposition than keeping them there for two, and far less likely to be accepted by the electorate.

If circumstances change, the plan can change. But if the Taliban decide to go easier for a couple of years, anticipating the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, what's the downside of that? That just gives Afghan security forces more time to develop their own capabilities.

Whatever mistakes Obama may be making in Afghanistan and Iraq, they aren't nearly as big as the ones he inherited.