ShareThis Page
Obama at the Rubicon |

Obama at the Rubicon


If the aphorism holds — the guerrilla wins if he does not lose — the Taliban are winning and America is losing the war in Afghanistan.

Well into the eighth year of war, the Taliban are more numerous than ever, inflicting more casualties than ever, operating in more provinces than ever and controlling more territory than ever. And their tactics are more sophisticated.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the situation “serious.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullen calls it “serious” and “deteriorating.”

President Obama thus faces a decision that may decide the fate of his presidency. For if the situation is grave and deteriorating, he cannot do nothing. Inaction invites, if it does not assure, defeat.

Does he cut U.S. losses, write off Afghanistan as not worth any more American blood and treasure, and execute a strategic retreat?

Or does he become the war president who sends McChrystal the thousands of U.S. troops necessary to stave off a defeat for all the years needed to train an Afghan army that can defend the Kabul regime and pacify the country?

Afghanistan is being called Obama’s Vietnam.

It could become that and bring down his presidency as Vietnam brought down Lyndon Johnson’s. But Afghanistan is not yet Vietnam in terms either of troops committed or casualties taken.

The 68,000 Americans who will be in Afghanistan at year’s end are an eighth of the forces in Vietnam when Richard Nixon began to bring them home. Vietnam cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. The Afghan war has cost fewer than 1,000.

Obama can still choose not to fight this war. But should he so choose, he will be charged by Republicans and neoconservatives with having cut and run, with having lost what he himself has repeatedly called a “war of necessity.

While there was no vital U.S. interest in Afghanistan before we went in, we have invested so much blood, money and prestige that withdrawal now — which would entail a Taliban takeover of Kabul and the Pashtun south and east — would be a strategic debacle unprecedented since the fall of Saigon.

But what if Obama approves McChrystal’s request and puts another 20,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops into the war?

Certainly, that would stave off any defeat. But what is the assurance it would bring enduring victory closer• The Taliban have matched us escalation for escalation and are now militarily stronger than at any time since the northern alliance, with U.S. air support, ran them out of Kabul.

About the political consequences of escalation, there is no doubt. Obama would divide his party and country. His support would steadily sink as the roll call of U.S. dead and wounded inexorably rose. He would watch as our NATO allies moved toward the exit and America was left alone to fight alongside the Afghans in a seemingly endless war.

Consider. If there were no Americans in Afghanistan today and the Taliban were on the verge of victory, how many of us would demand the dispatch of 68,000 troops to fight to prevent it• Few, if any, one imagines.

What that answer suggests is that the principal reason for fighting on is not that Afghanistan is vital, but that we cannot accept the American defeat and humiliation that withdrawal would mean.

Thus Obama’s dilemma: Accept a longer, bloodier war with little hope of ultimate victory, a decision that could cost him his presidency. Or order a U.S. withdrawal and accept defeat, a decision that could cost him his presidency.

In such situations, presidents often decide not to decide.

Harry Truman could not decide in Korea. LBJ could not decide in Vietnam. Both lost their presidencies. Ike and Nixon came in, cut U.S. losses and got out. The country rewarded both with second terms.

Pat Buchanan is the author of the book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.'”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.