The United States and NATO appear to be losing ground in Afghanistan, where the Bush administration has failed to focus on the fight against the terrorist forces responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
The central problem is clear, as explained last week by our nation’s highest military officer.
“We have the ability in almost every single case to win from the combat standpoint,” explained Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “But we don’t have enough troops there to hold. That is key to the future of being able to succeed in Afghanistan.”
This has to be an extremely frustrating situation to our troops, and damaging to their morale. It should be troubling to the American public as well.
Decisively defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida forces in Afghanistan should be at the top of the U.S. priority list. They attacked our nation on Sept. 11, 2001, and their goal is to inflict even more damage in the future.
These adversaries also pose a threat in neighboring Pakistan, where they would like to get their hands on that country’s nuclear weaponry.
The key distraction from the fight against the 9/11 extremists, of course, has been Iraq.
U.S. military officials are properly warning the White House, Congress and the public that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called attention to the fact that for the last two months more U.S. and allied troops have died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Mullen says he is “deeply troubled by the increasing violence” in Afghanistan.
As this newspaper has argued in the past, President Bush’s open-ended military commitment to the Iraqi government has become counterproductive in that country. U.S. policy has taken the pressure off Sunnis and Shiites to settle their endless squabbles.
But in addition, the everything-for-Iraq policy has hobbled the more important fight against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A fundamental reassessment is in order. The United States and NATO must have enough troops in Afghanistan to get the job done there.
I'm sorry, I thought George Bush said we weren't going to use benchmarks.
In any case, in Econ 101 one example of weighing costs and benefits is that of growing strawberries on the bottom of the ocean. It's certainly possible, but would anyone be willing to pay the price for those strawberries?
General Casey says we're already stretched too thin, and that it's going to take years for the Army to recover. Unless you believe that we can smash the insurgents in Iraq so hard that they'll realize the folly of their ways, lay down their arms, and open up tea shops in the sook, we're going to have to keep this up for, not years, but centuries. Are we willing to pay the price for those strawberries?