Normally, I would be critical of politicians flip-flopping on issues.
You know, saying one thing all along and then going a different way when it comes time to actually decide the policy.
It's disingenuous, but politicians do it all the time.
Well, this is one time where I actually hope a politician flip-flops on an issue.
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly said he would send more US troops to Afghanistan.
Here's some of what Obama used to say about Afghanistan:Aug. 1, 2007: "Our troops have fought valiantly there [Afghanistan], but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need - and deserve. ... As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."
July 2008: "We allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president."
After a trip to Afghanistan that same month - "For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three ... this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism."
"If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned ... And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."
March 2009: "I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
Here are some other random quotes from then-candidate Obama:
"We took our eye off Afghanistan," said Obama. "We took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11."
"We are having enormous problems in Afghanistan because of that decision [to invade Iraq]."
The US, under President Bush "failed to seriously go after Al Qaeda over the last five years, because of the distraction of Iraq" and "we are now seeing the consequences of that in Afghanistan."
"We allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes," the president-elect said. "That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president."
Despite those comments, Obama recently indicated he may not give McChrystal the 40,000 troops the top military authority in Afghanistan says he needs for success, at least until he is satisfied that the "right strategy" is in place, and apparently in place of the "new comprehensive strategy" he outlined in March.
But now, after a 66-page assessment of the war in Afghanistan, which was leaked to the Washington Post, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, said he needs the extra troops within a year or the war "will likely result in failure."
But now Obama, in what would have to be one of the most colossal flip-flops in modern political history, is saying he's not willing to send troops "beyond what we already have" until he was sure the US was employing the right strategy. (There are about 60,000 US troops in Afghanistan and McChrystal says an additional 40,000 are needed.) The troops are need for counterinsurgency strategy and to bring political and civil order to the country, the president is being told.
'I'm going to take a very deliberate process in making those decisions. There is no immediate decision pending on resources, because one of the things that I'm absolutely clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make a determination about resources.'
Of course, all the war guys are asking for more troops. They're war guys. War is what they do.
But I think the larger question is, what's the point?
One would think we would have learned something from Iraq. Back in 2003, before the US invaded Iraq, I had some pretty grave reservations about it. The fact that we didn't have full UN support was my main objection. We were going it alone. I was against that. But after the the war started, there was little left to do but support the troops.
But armed with the knowledge of what happened in Iraq, why not leave the mess in Afghanistan to covert operatives, drones and missiles?
I don't think anybody can "win" a war in Afghanistan. Other nations have tried before - and failed. It's worse than winning a war in Iraq because at least in Iraq there was a country and a government. Afghanistan is a bunch of tribes sharing land with warlords and poppy growers running the show.
The Karzai government is a joke. The guy just basically stole an election. Is this a government that even deserves us propping it up?
I believe straightening out this place would be a monumental task that would be exponentially more difficult than what we just went through in Iraq. And it would likely take a lot longer.
Why not bring troops home?
Let the covert guys locate the terrorist training camps when they crop up. Let the drones blow them up with those wonderful laser-guided missiles we've developed.
Redouble our efforts to disrupt finances of terror networks. Starve them for cash. Keep the terrorist types in check and let the warlords, poppy growers and puppet heads of state fend for themselves.
At the risk of enraging my conservative friends, I gotta say, I'm glad Obama's waffling a bit on this whole troops to Afghanistan thing.
