by Patrick J. Buchanan
If the aphorism holds — the guerrilla wins if he does not lose — the Taliban are winning and America is losing the war in Afghanistan.
Well into the eighth year of war, the Taliban are more numerous than ever, inflicting more casualties than ever, operating in more provinces than ever and controlling more territory than ever. And their tactics are more sophisticated.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the situation “serious.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullen calls it “serious” and “deteriorating.”
President Obama thus faces a decision that may decide the fate of his presidency. For if the situation is grave and deteriorating, he cannot do nothing. Inaction invites, if it does not assure, defeat.
Does he cut U.S. losses, write off Afghanistan as not worth any more American blood and treasure, and execute a strategic retreat?
Or does he become the war president who sends McChrystal the scores of thousands of U.S. troops necessary to stave off a defeat for all the years needed to conscript and train an Afghan army that can and will defend the Kabul regime and pacify the country?
Afghanistan is being called Obama’s Vietnam.
It could become that, and bring down his presidency as Vietnam brought down Lyndon Johnson’s. But Afghanistan is not yet Vietnam in terms either of troops committed or casualties taken.
The 68,000 Americans who will be in Afghanistan at year’s end are an eighth of the forces in Vietnam when Richard Nixon began to bring them home. Vietnam cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. The Afghan war has cost fewer than 1,000. U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are as yet only a fifth of the U.S. losses in the Philippine Insurrection of 1899-1902.
If we compare Afghanistan to Vietnam, we are about in 1964, when the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed and the bombing of the North began, or December 1965, when the Marines came ashore at Danang.
Obama can still choose not to fight this war.
But should he so choose, he will be charged by Republicans and neoconservatives with a loss of nerve, with having cut and run, with having lost what he himself has repeatedly called a “war of necessity,” with having abandoned the noble cause for which many of America’s best and bravest have already paid the ultimate price.
And it needs be said: The consequences of a U.S. withdrawal today would be far greater than if we had never gone in, or had gone in, knocked over the Taliban, run al-Qaida out of the country, gotten out and gone home.
Instead, we brought NATO in, put tens of thousands of troops in and declared our determination to build an Afghan democracy that would be a model for the Islamic world, where women’s rights were protected.
After inviting the world to observe how the superpower succeeds in taking down a tyranny and creating a democracy, we will have failed, and we will be perceived by the whole world to have failed.
While there was no vital U.S. interest in Afghanistan before we went in, we have invested so much blood, money and prestige that withdrawal now — which would entail a Taliban takeover of Kabul and the Pashtun south and east — would be a strategic debacle unprecedented since the fall of Saigon.
But what if Obama approves McChrystal’s request and puts another 20,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops into the war?
Certainly, that would stave off any defeat. But what is the assurance it would bring enduring victory closer? The Taliban have matched us escalation for escalation and are now militarily stronger than at any time since the Northern Alliance, with U.S. air support, ran them out of Kabul.
About the political consequences of escalation, there is no doubt.
Obama would divide his party and country. His support would steadily sink as the roll call of U.S. dead and wounded inexorably rose. He would watch as the NATO allies moved toward the exit and America was left alone to fight alongside the Afghans in a seemingly endless war.
Consider. If there were no Americans in Afghanistan today, and the Taliban were on the verge of victory, how many of us would demand the dispatch of 68,000 troops to fight to prevent it? Few, if any, one imagines.
What that answer suggests is that the principal reason for fighting on is not that Afghanistan is vital, but that we cannot accept the American defeat and humiliation that withdrawal would mean.
Thus Obama’s dilemma: Accept a longer, bloodier war with little hope of ultimate victory, a decision that could cost him his presidency. Or order a U.S. withdrawal and accept defeat, a decision that could cost him his presidency.
In such situations, presidents often decide not to decide.
Harry Truman could not decide in Korea. LBJ could not decide in Vietnam. Both lost their presidencies. Ike and Nixon came in, cut U.S. losses and got out. The country rewarded both with second terms.
Related posts:
- Obama and the Great GameBy Patrick J. Buchanan The day before Richard Holbrooke arrived in Kabul, eight suicide bombers...
- Lyndon Baines ObamaBy Patrick J. Buchanan It was the winter of conservative discontent. Barry Goldwater had gotten...
- President Obama: Give Peace a Meeting!By Cindy Sheehan — Op-Ed News Since you took office, 125 of our irreplaceable young...
- To Lose a WarBy Patrick J. Buchanan While America was consumed this summer with quarrels over town-hall radicals,...
- Nixon and Obama—Soul Brothers?By Patrick J. Buchanan Four decades ago, Lamar Alexander worked in Richard Nixon’s White House....
- Obama’s Betrayalsby Sheldon Richman – Future of Freedom Foundation After President Obama announced he would fight...
- Obama Avoids the CrocodileBy Patrick J. Buchanan By reversing himself and refusing to release graphic photos of abused...
Vote Average: 4.64 Stars!
Loading ...
"A strong dilemma in a desperate case! To act with infamy, or quit the place" – 'An Epistle to Mr Gay' by Jonathan Swift
When did Pat become such a "bean-counter?"
Sure is easy to say "stay the course" when it's not you, nor your kid's caboose on the front line. And is that Casper Milktoast "well, either this or that, perpetual Devil's Advocate mumbo-jumbo "the best way the talking heads of the U.S. Beltway can think of to oversee and spend U.S. TAXPAYER money? How exactly can "the smartest people in America" be so completely indecisive when it comes to shipping my brothers and sisters off to die or be maimed and yet so hellfire & brimstone CERTAIN ensuring our civilization stays remotely civilized via "public" health care similar to that the military has enjoyed for decades?
It's the hallmark of leadership that makes the JUST decision REGARDLESS of the consequences. With no goal in sight in Afghanistan OTHER than to reenact either LBJ or the USSR (or both), perhaps Pat and his ilk could set aside their God-forsaken 2-party affiliations for a minute and provide some better advice than a well-heeled 17-year old could give.
When are we going to stop sending our young men and, now, women to fight in foreign wars that only cost the American tax payer billions of dollars and benefit nobody? When are we going to stop the utter waste of human beings in the bloom of their lives? Its time to develop a foreign policy of diplomatic relations with fair trade with foreign countries instead of going to wage war in them. George Washington said it best when he advised us to "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world" while being on "friendly terms with, but independent of, all the nations of the earth."
One of the reasons people voted Obama into office is that he stated he would bring the boys home from Iraq while following a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East. Now, he is adding to the troops in Afghanistan.
Its time to bring the troops home and follow a policy of DEFENSE with posting them on the Southern Border to protect our country.
I fear that Buchanan has become more of a pundit than a leader for political thought.
It doesn't take a genius to know that Obama got himself in a cluster-f by promising to get further into Afghanistan. In fact Obama has no more clue as to where he is going with this war than Bush did or all the tyrants before him.
Is Obama's presidency really dependent on how he does in Afghanistan? or is it dependent on if him and this joke of a pelosi run congress can get america back to producing something besides debt?
I'd bet it was the later and thus Obama and Pelosi lose. How many votes does Obama think he is going to get from the neocons in 2012 considering that the R's are going to run another neocon moron like Bush and none of us are going to notice? gahuck because they better than the O?
Come on Pat, quit playing the Republican patsy and tell us what a bunch of thieves both parties are.
I'm not sure this is really about Afghanistan. Obama won't suffer much politically if he pulls out of Afghanistan since most Americans simply don't care. If Republicans and Neocons try to blame him for LOSING AFGHANISTAN, most Americans will say, 'good riddance to that war.' It will be like when Clinton pulled out of Somalia. And, MSM will protect Obama. Even patriotic gung-ho Americans are, at this point, too war-weary to really continue a long major war in the region. Most conservatives just want to pull out of Iraq with honor.
The real problem isn't Afghanistan but its neighbor Pakistan. If Taliban wins in Afghanistan, they will gain a tremendous momentum to push their brand of Islam to neighboring countries. Pakistan is unstable, plagued with religious fundamentalism and radicalism, and has nuclear weapons. That is the REAL danger of losing in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were just an island country, no big problem whether we win or lose. But, it is strategically situated in a hot spot. Taliban winning in Afghanistan will embolden fellow Islamic radicals and militants in nearby countries. Many will believe that US, with all its weaponry and money, is just a paper tiger.
The secular and moderate forces in Pakistan will lose heart and will feel that they've been abandoned by the US.
On the other hand, Taliban victory in Afghanistan might not be so bad. It might actually wake up the Pakistanis to the danger of Islamic radicalism and force them to act accordingly.
After all, the fall of Indo-China to communism made the other Southeast Asian nations grow closer to the US and more fervently anti-communist. They feared they could be NEXT and took the communist threat very seriously. Also, communism undermined itself in Vietnam and Cambodia through horrible excesses. Those horrors did more to undermine communism in the region and in the eyes of the world than American fighting against communism. If Taliban retakes Afghanistan and run it into the ground, most people in the Middle East may wake up and reject the "Talibanization" of the entire region.
Also, a Talibanized Afghanistan may be good for US-Iran relations. Iran and the Taliban have been bitter enemies. If a Talibanized Afghanistan is breathing down Iran's neck, Iran may feel compelled to seek better ties with the US. Iran can act cocky now in regards to Afghanistan because Americans are stuck there fending off the Taliban. With Americans gone and the Taliban threatening parts of Iran, Iranians won't be so arrogant/confident in foreign affairs.
Pat
I spent further time on your site and feel great about being a former and curent Buchanan supporter. best wishes