Rethinking a War

As he contemplates what to do in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama is being pulled in opposing directions. And he'll soon have to decide which way to go.

Obama's military advisers — including most notably, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan — are calling for a larger commitment. In a report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates obtained by The Washington Post, McChrystal characterized the situation in Afghanistan as "deteriorating" and likely to result in failure without a change in strategy and an infusion of new troops.

Meanwhile, his civilian advisers — including most notably, Vice President Joseph Biden — have called for a smaller footprint. They want fewer troops and more emphasis on fighting the Taliban and less on rebuilding the country.

For the first few months of his presidency, it looked as if Obama was ready to dig in his heels and fight what he implied during the campaign was the necessary war in Afghanistan — as opposed to the elective war in Iraq. In fact, Obama has sent more than 20,000 troops to that theater since taking office. But now, with U.S. casualties on the rise and questions about the legitimacy of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, the president seems to be rethinking his strategy.

There is nothing at all wrong with that sort of deliberative approach, especially since we're talking about the most important decision a president can make — whether to put U.S.

troops in harm's way. Besides, there are other factors to consider in addition to what the generals recommend. Obama also needs to hear from the State Department, the intelligence agencies and his White House advisers. Then he must make his decision.

Of course, the president should listen to his military commanders. Their opinions carry a lot of weight. But there is a good reason why, under our system, control of the military is in civilian hands. You can fashion the most brilliant military strategy in the world, but if it doesn't have the support of Congress and the American people, it doesn't stand a chance of working.

In the end, the path that might make the most sense could well be for the United States to pursue a narrower option and take the mission one step at a time. We need a new and clear strategy to keep al-Qaida from regrouping in Afghanistan, and we need to constantly reassess that strategy as the situation changes. There is no question that the United States must have a military presence in the country where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned, and anyone who says otherwise is fooling himself.

But we also have to make sure that our troops are undertaking a mission that can be accomplished. And it's the job of the president to decide that, with all the information he can gather and however long it takes to gather it.

REPRINTED FROM THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM