Obama Goes to War

What will take up more space in Barack Obama’s biography: the war in Afghanistan or health care reform in the United States? Both are bold, historic bets that Obama staked during his first year as president. One has already been won: the health care system will be reformed, by less than what is necessary, but more than what any of his predecessors have achieved. The result will be an improvement on the current system.

“A patient enemy that thinks in decades cannot be combated by he who thinks in months.”

On the other hand, the bet Obama wagered on Afghanistan is much more risky, and, unfortunately, he has a lower probability of winning it. In truth, the military escalation in Afghanistan cannot even be considered a bet. A high official from the Obama administration intimately involved in the decision process told me, “A bet is something optional. You can do it or not. But in this case, the president never had an option but to increase our military presence in Afghanistan. The generals (David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal) never offered him a credible alternative to that of sending more troops. From the beginning of the debate, the military escalation was their preference and the president ended up pleasing them.”

Although Obama pleased the Pentagon, he did it reluctantly and imposed his own conditions. The first stipulation was to set a date for withdrawal. In his speech, Obama announced that the military escalation would last until July 2011, that is to say, only 14 months after the arrival of 30,000 additional troops.

But the day following the speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, like other high officials, relaxed this promise. “It is the date at which we begin to gradually reduce our troops,” said Gates, and he highlighted that the speed of the reduction will depend on the conditions at the time. “Quite frankly, I detest the phrase ‘exit strategy’ and we’re not just going to throw these guys in the swimming pool and walk away,” added Gates.

He knows that they are facing a patient enemy that thinks in decades and that cannot be combated effectively by a country that thinks in months and announces its withdrawal before beginning the attack. This is going to be a difficult contradiction to resolve: the Americans either extend their military stay or reduce the ambition of their mission. To substantially weaken the insurgents, to prevent Al Qaeda’s use of Afghanistan as a base of operations, and to provide the Afghan Armed Forces with sufficient ability to maintain national security are jobs that will surely require more than 14 months.

J. Alexander Thier, an expert who has lived in Afghanistan for seven years, indiates that, despite a substantial increase in foreign troops and funds assigned to stimulate the economy, the situation keeps getting worse. In 2002, 69 soldiers from the international coalition led by the U.S. died in combat. The lows this year reach 485 soldiers (77 in August alone). According to Thier’s calculations, the number of Afghan civilians who died in the conflict has doubled every year since 2002.

Bombings and suicide attacks that were previously almost nonexistent are now daily occurrences. The production of opium jumped from 3,400 tons in 2002 to 7,700 in 2008, which shows that money available to finance the insurgents has also dramatically increased. All of this follows eight years of the presence of a 40-nation military coalition and, despite that, the U.S. alone has spent 227 billion dollars in this period trying to stabilize Afghanistan.

The entire world understands that the military escalation against the Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan will not be successful unless it is accompanied by an effective strategy aimed at achieving support of the society. This requires, among other things, better protection of the civilian population, an increase in employment, and a decrease in corruption. None of this is easy.

One of the most important conditions that the Americans have demanded from the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, is that he show clear progress in the decrease of corruption. There is no doubt that Karzai can do more. But how much more? Not much. On one hand, the corrupt leaders around him have more political force and financing that he does; on the other hand, do you remember the name of one country in the last few decades that has managed to decrease corruption? I don’t think so.

In short: the generals asked for more troops and Obama gave them the conditions. The troops will come, but the conditions won’t be met. We will read about it in Obama’s memoirs.