Obama: Losing Sight of the Mission in Afghanistan

Go to the Internet and do a search for counterterror "experts". You'll discover hundreds of them and thousands of op-eds and articles in newspapers and journals written by them.

Query: How many of these experts have ever fired an M16? How many have ever gone out on patrol in the cold of night or waited for hours in silent ambush? How many have ever looked a terrorist in the eyes or witnessed the bloody aftermath of a terror incident? You can probably count these "more experienced" experts on your fingers and toes, provided you're not missing any digits as the result of a terror attack.

Let's call the counterterror experts, whose knowledge is academic and whose resumes are at best adorned with a visit or two to Afghanistan or Iraq, "theoretical experts". I wonder how many theoretical experts are advising Obama and whether these are the persons behind Obama's decision to expand the American footprint in Afghanistan.

As reported yesterday in The New York Times:

"President Obama said Tuesday that he was determined to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan, and his aides signaled to allies that he would send as many as 25,000 to 30,000 additional American troops there even as they cautioned that the final number remained in flux.

. . . .

At a news conference in the East Room . . . Mr. Obama suggested that . . . the goals would be to keep Al Qaeda from using the region to launch more attacks against the United States and to bring more stability to Afghanistan.

. . . .

One administration official involved in Afghanistan policy said the president and his top advisers were thinking in terms of 'exit strategies' and not necessarily 'exit timetables.' . . . .

As Afghan security forces are trained and deployed, the official said, American officials and commanders would watch closely to determine when operational control of a given area could be turned over to them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html?hp

Remind you of U.S. strategy in Vietnam? It should: The U.S. is going to turn the job over the locals and declare victory. Good luck.

You can only turn the struggle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban over to the Afghans if you change the way that Afghans live and think, and this is not going to happen. The tribal and Sunni/Shiite conflicts which have persisted for centuries, will continue for many years to come. The U.S. mission cannot and should not be to "pacify" Afghanistan or to enlighten Afghanis as to the merits of democracy.

Moreover, a "surge" type operation is not destined to succeed for any meaningful duration of time. Al Qaeda can go dormant as long as it takes and move to more hospitable climes until a better time for them arises. This is the slippery nature of terror organizations, which makes them so difficult to locate and combat.

What then need be the objective? Simple: Kill Osama bin Laden. No need for a costly footprint that will bleed America dry. You do require ongoing intelligence and the readiness to strike lightning blows when opportunities arise.

Also, continue to go after bin Laden's financing; there can be no terrorist infrastructure or operations without funds.

Finally, the moment you mention "exit strategies", you're finished. You're advertising to friends and enemies your lack of commitment. The bottom line must always be: We're going to put a bullet between Osama bin Laden's eyebrows no matter how long it takes.