What happened
Following a months-long strategic review, President Obama reportedly reached a decision on war policy in Afghanistan this week and is preparing to order as many as 35,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. In addition, Obama is expected to ask NATO allies to furnish another 10,000 soldiers, bringing the allied troop level in Afghanistan to more than 100,000. The mission has a tentative deadline of five years, after which security duties would be turned over to the Afghan military. “It is my intention to finish the job,” Obama said. “I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive.”
Article continues belowThe Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What the editorials said
Obama’s decision on Afghanistan “is likely to be the one that will define him,” said Newsday. So he’d better clarify his—and the nation’s—goals. Are we there to build a strong central government in a country dominated by tribal leaders? To rout al Qaida? Is the plan to crush the Taliban, or co-opt it? Given such complex questions, Obama was right not to rush his answer, despite wrong-headed accusations of “dithering.” But now that he’s chosen a path, “he must not get Afghanistan wrong.”
Getting it right takes more than new troops, said Investor’s Business Daily, though we hope Obama won’t be “stingy” in providing them. What really matters is whether the president has the “will to win.” Obama can prove his mettle by strongly backing McChrystal’s counterinsurgency approach. It focuses on winning the Afghan people’s support by securing their cities, and gives our troops the best morale-booster of all—a genuine shot at victory.
What the columnists said
Counterinsurgency, even with more troops, is no cure-all, said Paul Staniland in ForeignPolicy.com. Classical counterinsurgency works by providing security and economic opportunity to the people and building a strong central government that can win their confidence. But in Afghanistan, the very idea of a strong state “is often in direct opposition to the will of the population.” This is how “grandiose visions of state-building” lead to quagmires.
We may not need a strong government in Kabul to succeed, said Fred Kaplan in Slate.com. Afghanistan isn’t run by a government—it’s run by tribes. So Obama had better be ready to go tribal. U.S. special forces are already working with some tribal militias fighting the Taliban, a development that military leaders hope to expand with “tribal engagement teams.” Tribal politics is definitely “back in fashion,” said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. has abandoned its efforts to strengthen national and local governments. In this difficult war, McChrystal’s going “in several directions at once, looking for game-changing opportunities to halt the Taliban’s advance.”
That’s why Obama faces a nearly impossible task when he addresses the American people next week, said James Gordon Meek in the New York Daily News. “Short of immediate withdrawal,” there’s nothing he could unveil that would end our involvement in Afghanistan before the 2012 election. It’s hard to imagine how he can convince Americans it’s worth fighting for “many more years” to win a war that most of us no longer have the patience for.