Reversal of Fortune

The waiting is over. The orders have been given. Tonight comes the explanation. Just over one hundred days have gone by since Gen. Stanley McChrystal presented President Obama with an assessment of the progress of the war in Afghanistan and his subsequent request for 40,000 additional troops. He will get them. Perhaps not in the numbers requested, and perhaps not for the duration required, but make no mistake about it President Obama plans to escalate the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan before he calls it quits.

As he should, if you agree with him that Afghanistan is the "good war" and "a war of necessity." Many conservatives and Republicans do too. But he shouldn't commit additional numbers of young people to fight a war many believe to be unwinnable just because he feels bound by his previous words. And neither should I. So despite what I wrote over a month ago in How Not to Fight a War, I am of the opinion that we should leave the quagmire that has become Afghanistan and return home to fight another day. And there will be another day, probably sooner rather than later.

Why the change of heart? Why would I be in agreement with the likes of The Nation's Chris Hayes, or Bob Herbert of the New York Times, who both agree any escalation is a tragic mistake? Just to be contrary to Barack Obama? Whatever he thinks I must do the opposite? No, but it is disconcerting to find myself in agreement with the antiwar crowd in the progressive wing of the Democrat party. But unlike them, I do think some wars are good and most are extremely necessary. Just not this one (or at least the current iteration), and neither was the one in Iraq, but for vastly different reasons then they would espouse.

I disagree that we should commit more troops to Afghanistan and extend our presence there because there are too many forces working against a successful outcome and the biggest one is that no one can define what is a successful outcome. What is the end game? Al Qaeda on the run? The Taliban in retreat? Both are already partly true. Al Qaeda is mainly where we are not, and the Taliban only needs to solidify it's control of Pakistan before they cede Afghanistan entirely for their production of opium. Is it to stand up a democratically elected government? Did I mention how odd it feels to be in agreement with Bob Herbert?

There also remains the unwavering ambivalence of Barack Obama to wage a serious war against Islamic extremists. Up until now his harshest words have been reserved for his critics and couples who crash his parties. He has demonstrated more conviction in defending the rights of those who propagated 9/11 than in defending American interests abroad. His parties leaders, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will do their best to thwart appropriations vital to the war effort. A growing number of American citizens, consumed by their own troubles at home, have become less willing to sacrifice their offspring and pay forward any attempts to implant peace in a part of the globe that has alluded such for centuries.

That being said, without the solid convictions of our president, members of Congress, and the American people, backed by the unlimited access to our treasury for the resources necessary to fully protect and support our soldiers, then I suggest we cease the further prosecution of this war and bring our men and women home with the greatest speed possible.