Obama’s new Afghanistan strategy
President Obama moved closer to setting a new strategy for Afghanistan, meeting with his national security advisors amid signs that he is preparing to provide some—but not all—of the new troops requested by Gen. Stanley McCh
What happened
President Obama moved a step closer to setting a new strategy for Afghanistan this week, meeting with his national security advisors amid signs that he is preparing to provide some—but not all—of the new troops requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Obama is evaluating a range of options that begin with McChrystal’s request for 40,000 to 80,000 additional troops to bolster a counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban. But with the Taliban resurgent and U.S. faith in the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in tatters, Obama is reported to be narrowing U.S. goals to preventing the Taliban from toppling the central government and to keeping al Qaida on its heels, so that it cannot mount terrorist attacks on the U.S. In the five meetings with advisors thus far, aides said, Obama repeatedly has asked, “What is our mission?”
Obama appears to be leaning toward adopting some of McChrystal’s recommendations, including redeploying existing troops from remote outposts and concentrating instead on providing security and civic order in Kabul, Kandahar, and other major cities. But he’s likely to scale back the request for additional troops, with one senior administration official saying Obama is seeking “a sweet spot” between the 68,000 U.S. troops now there and the 110,000 McChrystal envisions. Obama said this week he’d reach a decision on troops and policy in about two weeks.
Subscribe to The 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 choice “is a momentous one, but it shouldn’t be hard,” said National Review Online. It comes down to whether he’s going to give his commander the troops to succeed or whether he’ll “find some fig leaf for the status quo.” The real danger is that Obama will “cut McChrystal’s troop request in half and declare himself stalwart yet prudent.” As “the surge” in Iraq demonstrated, a successful counterinsurgency requires plenty of boots on the ground.
It’s not all about troops, said the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. McChrystal also called for a new strategy—one requiring troops to “live and work among the Afghan people,” a tactic likely to lead to hundreds of additional casualties. No president wants that, but Obama also knows that whatever happens in Afghanistan will directly affect nuclear-armed Pakistan next door. With so much at stake, Obama is wise to take the time to get this decision right.
What the columnists said
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
It’s time to “face facts” and stop “dithering,” said Michael Scheuer in ForeignPolicy.com. We’re losing. A general “does not ask for a near doubling of his force to smooth out minor problems.” But Obama and the American public lack the resolve to fight a long and bloody war in Afghanistan, so “the best we can do is give McChrystal the troops he needs to slow defeat.” Eventually, the U.S. will withdraw, and there will be “more al Qaida attacks in North America.”
We’ve heard doomsday talk like that for years, said A.J. Rossmiller in The New Republic Online. But after eight years, it’s clear that “the insurgency does not have the capability to defeat” U.S. forces. It’s equally clear that “U.S. forces do not have the ability to vanquish the insurgency.” Despite recent Taliban advances, said Fareed Zakaria in The Washington Post, the Karzai government still controls “all the major population centers,” and our troops and Predator drones have decimated al Qaida, with just 100 hard-core fighters left. The goal in Afghanistan was to neutralize al Qaida by denying them “the means to reconstitute, to train, and to plan major terrorist attacks.” Well, mission accomplished.
Those clamoring for more troops remain stuck in a neoconservative dream, said Frank Rich in The New York Times. The U.S. cannot “build a functioning state in a country where there never has been one,” and according to the principles of the counterinsurgency doctrine established by neocon hero Gen. David Petraeus, we’d need 640,000 troops to bring Afghanistan’s 32 million people under control. Polls show a majority of Americans are sick of this war, “and they will not again be so easily bullied by blustering hawks’ doomsday scenarios.”
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
-
Why deepfakes of dead loved ones are big business in China
Under The Radar AI-generated avatars of deceased 'builds on China's long cultural history of communicating with the dead'
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
Today's political cartoons - May 12, 2024
Cartoons Sunday's cartoons - tips for Mom, worm regards, and more
By The Week US Published
-
5 brain-busting cartoons about RFK Jr.
Cartoons Artists take on candidate suitability, the Kennedy family, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published