Surge Ahead!

Last week, half of those surveyed told a Washington Post-ABC News poll, that the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. In two weeks General Stanley McChrystal will report his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to President Obama. McChrystal, who recently assumed command of the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan, is expected to ask for another increase in US troop levels.

In December of 2006, half of the voters surveyed in a Washington Post-ABC News poll thought the USIraq; a month later President Bush approved the troop “surge” requested by General David Petraeus, the new senior US commander in Iraq. was losing in

President Obama campaigned last fall, promising to fight the “right war” in Afghanistan. The president should accept General McChrystal’s suggestions, and approve any call for additional troops. McChrystal is expected to request that the President honor his commitment to send another 17,000 troops raising the US total to nearly 85,000.

In the weeks before Iraqi Surge, liberal activists protested any troop increase. Today those liberals are pushing President Obama to abandon Afghanistan. They espouse varied reasons: the war is un-winnable; Pakistan is now the real problem; and for some, just plain pacifism. Their reflexive opposition to US military action abroad will ensure the resistance of congressional Democrats to a troop increase.

Speaker Pelosi and her loyalists will quote polls, claiming that voters are tired of the war. They will pressure President Obama to forget his promises and abandon the Afghans. Obama needs to stand up to his left leaning allies and listen to his generals.

Two years ago, hoping to prevent the surge, the same congressional Democrats quoted those polls about Iraq. Liberal Democrats virulently resisted the Iraqi surge, until it became clear in 2008 that the surge was working. That president, ignored the polls, stood firm behind General Petraeus and gave him time to achieve results. Today we continue reducing troop levels in Iraq, and while there is still violence, the Iraqi government is standing up to the Insurgency.

Afghanistan troop levels have been restricted for several reasons including the need for a larger number of troops in Iraq. Additionally, the 2002 accord put NATO in charge of military operations in Afghanistan. Some NATO allies, the British, Canadians and Dutch, have fought hard since the Taliban insurgency began. Last year, however, I personally encountered many NATO forces who were only interested in “peace keeping” operations.

Peacekeeping! I overheard NATO officers use this term, describing their mission in Northern Afghanistan, where the German Army is in charge. Aghast I had to wonder; between which factions are they keeping peace? Between a legitimate Afghan government and a Taliban insurgent force?

I won’t under-value the valiant effort of thousands of NATO soldiers. During my year in the German sector of Northern Afghanistan I worked with many professional NATO soldiers. But domestic politics across Europe has corrupted the efforts of several nations from the outset.

An example: thousands of US soldiers operate in northern Afghanistan as advisors to Afghan forces. Last year we had no certainty of medical evacuation by helicopter. Allied air forces would not guarantee an immediately respond to US requests for medical evacuation. US commanders had to add limit missions, damaging our ability to complete missions.

Creating effective local security forces is the priority in Afghanistan. NATO’s constraints severely limited ou r efforts to mentor the Afghans. Now the Taliban has re-asserted itself in the northern province of Kunduz; no doubt because of NATO’s timidity and restrictions on the smaller US contingent there. A robust US presence could easily reverse these events, and hold the province until Afghan forces are ready to stand on their own. The Iraq surge succeeded through these tactics.

NATO signed up for peacekeeping, not counter-insurgency. General McChrystal specializes in counter-insurgency; he adapted US efforts to this difficult style of war. Ready to use the Iraqi surge as his model, if he can get the forces he needs he will win. A fresh infusion of US troops will secure the population, and train and mentor the Afghan security forces. A coordinated counterinsurgency effort with enough US forces, can and will succeed in Afghanistan.

If Obama truly believes that Afghanistan is the “right war,” he will use the Iraq surge model. The last administration overcame the anti-war faction in Congress, including then Senator Obama. They convinced a doubting electorate to support a new strategy. Obama must face down his own allies on the left to support an Afghan surge.

The alternatives are bleak. The Afghan war is not un-winnable, but failure to fight effectively now, could strand us in Afghanistan for years. The worst outcome would be to abandon the Afghanistan people to the Taliban. A failed, or Talibanized Afghanistan, adjacent to a weak and unstable Pakistan is not in anyone’s interest. The problem is limited to neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan. Any solution must be truly regional, therefore we must secure Afghanistan from the Taliban and its al-Quaeda allies.